Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely,

South Staffordshire Water Bill [Lords].

Bill to be read a Second time.

Crown Lands Bill (Standing Orders applicable thereto not complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred pursuant to the Order of the House of the 9th day of April last, the Standing Orders, which are applicable thereto, have not been complied with, namely,

Crown Lands Bill.

Report referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

Great Western Railway (Ealing and Shepherd's Bush Railway Extension) Bill (by Order),

Third Reading deferred till Thursday.

London and North Eastern Railway (London Transport) Bill (by Order),

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Epsom and Walton Downs Regulation Bill [Lords] (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.

London County Council (Money) Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Thursday.

READING CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL,

"to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Minister of Transport under the Reading Corporation Act, 1935, relating to Reading Corporation Trolley Vehicles," presented by Captain Austin Hudson; read the First time and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 95.]

DONCASTER CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL,

"to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Minister of Transport under the Doncaster Corporation Act, 1926, relating to Doncaster Corporation Trolley Vehicles," presented by Captain Austin Hudson; read the First time: and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 96.]

DERBY CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL,

"to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Minister of Transport under the Derby Corporation Act, 1930, relating to Derby Corporation Trolley Vehicles," presented by Captain Austin Hudson; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 97.]

POST OFFICE (AMERICAN MAIL CONTRACT).

Copy ordered,
of the Contract, dated the 1st day of April, 1936, between His Majesty's Postmaster-General and Cunard White Star, Limited, for the conveyance of Mails to and from the United States of America, together with a copy of the Treasury Minute thereon, dated the 16th day of April, 1936."—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]

TRAMWAYS AND LIGHT RAILWAYS (STREET AND ROAD) AND TROLLEY VEHICLE UNDER TAKINGS.

Return ordered,
of Street and Read Tramways and Light Railways authorised by Act or Order, showing the amount of capital authorised, paid up, and expended; the length 'of line authorised and the length open for traffic, and the number of cars owned at the 31st day of December, 1935, in respect of companies, and the end of the financial year


1935–36 in respect of local authorities; the gross receipts, working expenditure, net receipts and appropriations, the transactions in reserve funds, and traffic and operating statistics for the year ended on the foregoing dates, respectively (in continuation of Return to an Order of the House, dated the 17th day of April, 1935); also similar particulars relating to Trolley Vehicle Undertakings."—[Captain A. Hudson.]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

WHALE OIL

Mr. KIRBY: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, arising from a recent communication from the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce on the question of the importation of whale oil, he can now inform the traders concerned of the future policy of his Department in regard to trade agreements as to whale oil, as compared with West African palm oil and other oil nut and seed products?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): The views expressed in the communication to which the hon. Member refers have been noted, and will be borne in mind in any negotiations for the revision of any trade agreements which affect these commodities; but I cannot forecast the course of such negotiations with regard to particular commodities.

Mr. KIRBY: Has the right hon. Gentleman informed the Chamber of Commerce of his views on this subject?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I shall always be glad to consider any information that is given to me.

Mr. KIRBY: My question was whether the right hon. Gentleman had informed the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce as to his views on the subject, and how he had come to those views?

Mr. LOGAN: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman, in view of the length of time that this matter has been under consideration, give some more specific information with regard to this question of preferential treatment for whale oil?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am afraid I cannot.

Mr. KIRBY: Would the right hon. Gentleman be willing to receive a deputation on this subject from the Chamber of Commerce?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes; I have already said that I shall be glad of any information that can be given to me.

Mr. KIRBY: I asked whether the right hon. Gentleman would receive a deputation?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I imagine that there would be no object in sending a deputation except for the exchange of information.

TEXTILE GOODS (IMPORTS).

Sir EUGENE RAMSDEN: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that wool textile goods of Italian manufacture are being imported into this country via Austria; and whether he is prepared to take such action as may be necessary to stop this breach in the sanctions against Italy?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am not aware that wool textile goods of Italian manufacture are being illegally imported into this country via Austria. I would, however, remind my hon. Friend that goods with an added value of 25 per cent. attributable to processes carried out since the goods left Italian territory fall outside the scope of the prohibition of imports from Italy. This exception, which follows the terms of the relevant proposal of the Co-ordination Committee of the League of Nations, is subject, in the case of wool textiles from Austria, to the production of satisfactory certificates of origin.

Mr. LEACH: Will the right hon. Gentleman convey to the Foreign Secretary the information that he has just now given to the House, because that gentleman is under some delusion on the matter?

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say, from the indications that reach him, whether there is any great enthusiasm on the part of traders for sanctions?

Mr. LEACH: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consent to withdraw the regulations of his Department which allow importers of textile goods from Japan, Italy, Austria,


and elsewhere, in the grey to have such goods dyed, bleached, or finished in this country, and then to re-export them as being of British origin?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: As I explained to the hon. Member in reply to his question of 28th April, the decision whether foreign textiles finished in this country and re-exported are thereafter to be regarded as of United Kingdom or foreign origin rests not with His Majesty's Government, but with the Government of the importing country. In these circumstances no regulations laid down by my Department are applicable. In certain countries, however, in pursuance of trade agreements or otherwise, a reserved share of the market has been in some way guaranteed for United Kingdom textiles (as, for example, under the operation of quotas or exchange restrictions). In such cases the desirability is recognised of ensuring that the benefit should so far as possible inure only to textiles which are wholly of United Kingdom manufacture. As previously explained, special steps designed to bring about this result have been, or are being taken, in these cases. As regards imports of textiles into this country from Italy, I would remind the hon. Member that such imports are at present prohibited.

Mr. LEACH: I should like to be clear about this. Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that textile goods brought into this country in the grey and then re-exported as of British origin after being finished here are under an arrangement with which his Department has no power to interfere, and that the certificate that they are of British origin is not delivered by his Department at all?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, what I said was that in the circumstances described in the first part of my answer no regulations laid down by my Department are applicable.

Mr. REMER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that large quantities of Japanese cloth are being bleached and dyed in Lancashire and Cheshire and being exported to the West Indies as British cloth?

Mr. LEACH: Does not this constitute a sort of fraud on the customer?

ARGENTINA.

Major PROCTER: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is yet in a position to state what action the Government propose i o take with regard to the renewal or non-renewal of the trade agreement with the Argentine Republic?

Mr. LAMBERT: asked the President of the Board of Trade what action he proposes to take, if the negotiations for a new agreement fail, to prevent the Anglo-Argentine Trade Agreement from continuing in force after October next?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The informal discussions with the Argentine Government are still proceeding, and I am unable at the moment to add to I he replies already given on this subject.

Mr. LAMBERT: Would the right hon. Gentleman kindly answer Question 19, as to what action he proposes to take, if the negotiations for a new agreement fail, to prevent the Anglo-Argentine Trade Agreement from continuing in force after October next? Could we have a clear answer on that point?

Mr. THURTLE: On a point of Order. May I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, as a matter of Order, that Question No. 19 is essentially a hypothetical one, and, therefore, not a proper one to be on the Paper?

Mr. SPEAKER: There is an "if" in it.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: There is in the agreement itself provision for notice being given for the termination of the agreement. That is a matter that is naturally very much in our mind at present.

Mr. LAMBERT: Has that notice been given and, if it is not given, will not the agreement continue after October?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I cannot say that notice has been given, because it is not due to be given until to-morrow.

Mr. SHINWELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman resist the demands from the opposite benches for the denunciation of an agreement which, if it is denounced, may have serious effects on many industries?

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Is notice going to be given to-morrow? Is


the right hon. Gentleman aware that the agricultural industry is expecting such notice to be given and that, in its view, the Government will not be carrying out its pledges until it is given?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is making some assumptions which are not justified. We are quite capable of holding our own in negotiations with that country, and we are certainly keeping in mind—in their mind as well as our own—the fact that denunciation may take effect as from to-morrow.

Major PROCTER: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us that, in the event of this agreement being renewed, Lancashire will have a fairer field than it had under the last agreement?

WELSH TIN-PLATE.

Mr. SORENSEN: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether orders for Welsh tin-plate have increased or decreased during the last five weeks and to what extent?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I regret that this information is not available.

Mr. SORENSEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman secure the information?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: A good deal of this information is confidential, and what is confidential I cannot obtain.

Mr. SORENSEN: Is it confidential because the steel cartel makes it so, and is it not possible to secure that the cartel shall disclose the information?

Oral Answers to Questions — MERCANTILE MARINE

DIRECTIONAL WIRELESS (SOUTH COAST).

Captain PETER MACDONALD: asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the present number arid position of wireless directional stations on the South Coast; and whether there are any plans under consideration for the increase of these stations, in view of the assistance which they provide to vessels navigating in the Channel under foggy conditions?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: There are radio-beacons on the south coast of England at Dungeness, Start Point, Caskets, Round Island (Scilly), Rame Head (near Ply-

mouth), and on the Nab Tower (Spit-head), the last of which was completed only in December last. The wireless telegraph stations at Niton and the Land's End give, on request, bearings to ships. Only radio-beacons or other wireless facilities proposed to be established by the General Lighthouse Authorities at the cost of the General Lighthouse Fund are dealt with by my Department, and there are no applications before me at present for financial sanction to establish additional facilities on the South Coast.

COASTAL TRADE (FOREIGN COMPETITION).

Captain P. MACDONALD: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any information showing to what extent foreign competition with British coastal shipping has increased or decreased during the past 12 months?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Of the aggregate tonnage of the vessels, including their repeated voyages, that arrived and departed with cargoes in the coasting trade of the United Kingdom, foreign tonnage represented 1.3 per cent. in the year ended 31st March, 1936, as compared with 0.8 per cent. in the preceding 12 months.

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: In view of the numerous complaints that are made, is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that these statistics actually represent the position?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: As far as I can tell, they do, but I have been doing my best to alter the method of the statistics so that we may get the tonnage actually handled as well as the nominal entries.

STEAMSHIP "QUEEN MARY" (INSURANCE).

Mr. DAY: asked the President of the Board of Trade to what extent the Government are responsible for any portion of the present marine risk of the new Cunarder the steamship "Queen Mary"?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Board of Trade will undertake marine risks insurance of the steamship "Queen Mary" to the extent of £1,800,000. This is the amount by which the insurances placed on the open market fall short of the value of the vessel for insurance purposes.

Mr. DAY: Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether any of the open-market insurance was taken up by foreign market?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I could not say without notice.

NORTH ATLANTIC SHIPPING CONFERENCE.

Mr. LYONS: asked the President of the Board of Trade which companies participated in the recent North Atlantic Shipping Conference; what decision was reached, so far as affects the public, on the classification of cabin ships; how many ships in regular North Atlantic service from and to this country are of the non-cabin class; and whether, if size has now no relation to this classification, it is proposed to encourage the building of smaller tonnage vessels more approximating to those previously known as cabin ships?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I understand that all the British and foreign North Atlantic passenger lines participated in the Conference to which my hon. and learned Friend refers, and, that as a result of the decisions reached, the upper grade of accommodation of all passenger ships plying between North American ports and this country will be described as "cabin class." The matter referred to in the last part of the question is one for the consideration of the various lines in the North Atlantic Conference.

Mr. LYONS: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said, do I understand that all the vessels on this service will in future be classed as cabin ships, irrespective of their tonnage?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am afraid I could not say without notice. If my hon. and learned Friend wishes for any extension of the information I have given with regard to the Conference, and will put a further question on the Paper, I shall be very glad to do my best to supply it.

FREIGHTS (BALTIC AND WHITE SEAS).

Miss WARD: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, with regard to the freights agreement in the Baltic, he has any information as to its operation and its ability to hold freights at an economic level?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I presume my hon. Friend refers to the scheme known as the Balt-White. Scheme organised by the Baltic and International Maritime Conference with a view to establishing minimum rates of freight in the timber trade

from the Baltic and White Seas. I have no information on the working of the scheme beyond what has appeared in the Press.

Miss WARD: In view of the fact that the Russians, apparently, have not been keeping their bargain in relation to this agreement, will the right hon. Gentleman consider making representations to the Russian Government on that point?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I cannot, without refreshing my memory, say exactly what is the action of the Russians towards the scheme, but my recollection was that they remained outside it, and have not been bound by the minimum rates provided in the agreement.

Miss WARD: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider encouraging them to come into the scheme?

LAID-UP TONNAGE (RIVER TYNE).

Miss WARD: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether there has been any appreciable increase of idle tonnage on the Tyne during the past few months?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: According to the quarterly returns of laid-up tonnage published by the Chamber of Shipping of the United Kingdom, the tonnage laid up on the Tyne on 1st April, 1936, was 91,000 tons net, which was 7,000 tons more than on 1st January, 1936, but 72,000 tons less than on 1st April, 1935.

Miss WARD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the recent increase is believed to be due to the fact that Russian ships are cutting into the freight market in the Baltic?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I imagine that such little change as there has been has been due to a variety of cause s, of which that may quite possibly be one.

CREWS' QUARTERS.

Mr. JAMES HALL: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the medical officer of health for Liverpool has reported to the port sanitary authority I hat the crews' quarters in most vessels, whether recently constructed or not, are not improved in design or equipment, and that most vessels visited which catered for the comfort of the crew were designed and built


by foreign firms; and what steps he proposes to bring the design of all new British vessels into line with the best modern practice?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am aware of the report referred to. The committee appointed by the Shipping Federation, to which I referred in Debate on 11th February, has now submitted recommendations which are under consideration by the Board of Trade.

Mr. HALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that British shipowners should lag behind foreign shipowners in providing a measure of comfort for seamen?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am certainly in favour of a measure of comfort being provided on ships, and I hope that the steps now being taken will conduce to that end.

Mr. SHINWELL: When will the recommendations of the Shipping Federation receive the right hon. Gentleman's consideration, and when will he be able to make a statement?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: They are being examined at the present moment, and I hope that at an early date I shall be able to make a statement.

EMPLOYMENT (ALIENS).

Mr. MARKHAM: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any steps are being taken to prevent employment of foreign officers and men in British ships; and whether he will consider holding a public inquiry into the conditions of employment in the merchant navy with special reference to manning?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1919, contains provisions regulating the employment of aliens in British merchant ships. It is, also, the declared policy of the Tramp Shipping Subsidy Committee that British crews should be employed wherever practicable on vessels receiving subsidy. There already exist appropriate methods of discussing conditions of employment in the Mercantile Marine, and I consider a public inquiry unnecessary. The question of manning, from the point of view of safety, has recently been considered by the Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee, and the Department's proposed

instructions based upon those recommendations are now before that committee.

Mr. MARKHAM: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication when the proposed instructions will be available?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am afraid I cannot name a date, but very shortly.

GERMAN SHIPBUILDING CONTRACTS.

Sir REGINALD BLAIR: asked the President of the Board of Trade the tonnage of ships of British ordering which is being constructed in German shipyards?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on 4th May to the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey).

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: Arising out of the fact that the answer contained no information, can the right hon. Gentleman obtain this information?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have no official means of obtaining it. I can only get vague figures on the subject.

Sir R. BLAIR: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the statement in the Press than on the first of last month 44 British ships were under construction in German shipyards?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, I saw that paragraph, but I have not been able to verify the exact figure.

Mr. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to find out whether there is any truth in the statement? Is he not aware that the tonnage amounts to 144,000 tons?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am not aware what the tonnage is. We have no means of obtaining information from foreign shipyards.

Mr. MAXTON: Has not the right hon. Gentleman the right to ask British ship-owners whether they are having ships built abroad?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have the right to make any inquiries, but it does not lie within my province to compel them to give the information if they do not wish to.

SHIPBUILDING (FOREIGN MATERIAL).

Mr. LOUIS SMITH: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the financing of tramp-ship building by the State, he can state the estimated percentages of such sums represented by labour and material, respectively; and how much of the latter is imported from abroad?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The precise information for which my hon. Friend asks is not available, but according to the report on the Census of Production, 1930, the cost of materials at that time represented about 52 per cent. and wages of operatives about 28 per cent. of the gross value of the shipbuilding and ship repairing output in Great Britain. Information with regard to the last part of the question is not available.

Mr. SMITH: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take any steps to avoid the expenditure of public moneys on foreign materials for these ships, as in the case of rivets, when factories in this country are not employed to full capacity?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: There have been a good many questions on the subject of rivets in the last two weeks, and there is nothing that I can add to what I have stated.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Could not the price of rivets be reduced by reducing the duty on steel?

Mr. BOULTON: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot have a debate on every question.

Mr. HALL-CAINE,: asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether he is aware that, owing to the fact that Dutch coastal trading vessels are subsidised by their own Government, they are able to undercut our cargo boats, with the result that numerous small shipping firms are suffering severe losses and unemployment is being caused among British seamen; and what steps he proposes to take to remedy this position;
(2) whether, in view of the damage to British shipping caused by the undercutting by foreign ships, he will consider prohibiting foreign-owned vessels, of less than 1,000 tons, trading from port to port round the coasts of Great Britain?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am aware that in recent months there has been an increase in the tonnage of vessels under foreign flags arriving at and departing from United Kingdom ports in the coasting trade, and the position is being watched. Apart from difficulties arising out of treaty obligations, it is by no means certain that the action suggested in question No. 18 would be to the benefit of British shipping. With regard to Dutch vessels in the coasting trade, my information suggests that they are not in receipt of subsidy from the Dutch Government.

Captain ARTHUR EVANS: Will the right hon. Gentleman draw the attention of the Great Western Railway Company to the increase of shipping in docks in South Wales with a view to persuading them not to curtail facilities for British ships in those ports?

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

MANOEUVRES (MEMBERS, FACILITIES).

Mr. PORRITT: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the increased expenditure on the Army Estimates, he will consider making arrangements for Members of the House of Commons to attend the Army manoeuvres this year?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Duff Cooper): I shall be happy to arrange facilities for a number of Members to attend the manoeuvres this year.

VACCINATION.

Mr. PALIN: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Frederick Rogers, of 299, Battle Road, Hollington, aged 18, joined the Royal Engineers in March, was stationed at Chatham, and according to Army Regulations was vaccinated, this operation almost immediately causing illness that resulted in his death five weeks after joining the Army; and whether, in. view of the admitted danger of vaccination causing inflammation of the brain, he will allow exemption from vaccination in the Army?

Mr. COOPER: This soldier died of cerebro-spinal meningitis. I am assured that there is no causal connection between


vaccination and diseases of this character. The last part of the question, therefore, does not arise.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

HOUSING.

Mr. BARR: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that in the town of Airdrie there are some 104 families who have taken possession of dwelling-houses which have been vacated following the issue of closing or demolition orders, and that some 23 of these have been convicted, and heavy fines and imprisonment imposed for squatting in condemned houses; whether he will prevent further proceedings against those in occupation of these houses; and whether he can hold out the prospect, by legislation or otherwise, of providing State subsidies towards the building of houses to accommodate such families?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): Yes, Sir; the position is generally as stated. I have, however, no power to prevent proceedings being taken against persons in illegal occupation of condemned houses. With regard to the last part of the question, the decrowding operations of local authorities under the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1935, will, it is expected, release habitable accommodation which will be available, among others, for the class of persons referred to.

Mr. J. J. DAVIDSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries to ascertain whether these people who have squatted are desirous and agreeable to pay nominal rent?

Sir G. COLLINS: I will make such inquiries.

Mr. BARR: Will the right hon. Gentleman in the meantime co-operate with the local authority in providing that these people should not be prosecuted for securing alternative accommodation, as I understand that it will be a considerable time before any other houses are free?

Sir G. COLLINS: As the hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware, Parliament has delegated these powers to local authorities, and it is only on representation by local authorities that the law is put into operation, and I must trust, there-

fore, the local authorities to deal fairly and justly with the matter.

ANCIENT BUILDINGS.

Mr. HANNAH: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware of the extensive destruction of ancient buildings now going on in Scotland; and whether he will advise local authorities, wherever possible, to recondition old houses instead of building less substantial new ones?

Sir G. COLLINS: No, Sir. I am not aware that extensive destruction of ancient buildings is taking place in Scotland, but if my hon. Friend will supply me with particulars of any cases which he has in view I shall be happy to have them investigated. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of a circular issued on the passing of the Housing Act last year in which local authorities were specifically reminded of the importance of preserving existing works of architectural, historical and artistic interest. Arrangements have also been made for consultation between my Department and the Office of Works in the case of orders submitted by local authorities for confirmation which involve the demolition of property under the Housing Acts.

SCHOOL CHILDREN (MILK AND MEALS).

Mr. GALLACHER: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will consider the Circulars 1437 and 1443 of the Board of Education which provide for the supply of milk and meals for children attending public elementary schools with a view to extending similar provisions to Scottish schools?

Sir G. COLLINS: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to his similar question of 19th March, 1936, in which it was indicated that a circular (of which I am sending him a copy) dealing with the school milk schemes and with the general powers for feeding in schools was issued to all Scottish Education Authorities on 31st October, 1934.

Mr. GALLACHER: Is the right hon. Gentleman contemplating building restaurants in connection with the schools in Scotland, and, if not, will he give the matter consideration?

Sir G. COLLINS: That is a matter which must rest with the education authority in the area.

PUBLIC ASSISTANCE (DISABILITY PENSION).

Mr. BUCHANAN: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of authorities operating the Court of Session decision given in the case of the Aberdeen public assistance committee regarding exemption of £1 per week disability pension; if he is aware that the Glasgow Corporation are operating this decision in a way contrary to the Act of Parliament; whether he will inform the corporation that, while the subject is under appeal to the House of Lords, they should not operate such decision; and will he take steps to see that the Act of Parliament in its intention is carried out either by administration or fresh legislation?

Sir G. COLLINS: Local authorities are not required to inform me of the details of their administrative practice, and I regret that I am not in a position to supply the information asked for in the first part of the question. With regard to the second part, I am informed that Glasgow Corporation are dealing with new applicants in accordance with the decision of the Court of Session. In regard to the remaining parts, that decision, so long as it stands, represents the law on the subject, and I have no power to instruct local authorities to ignore the decision. Pending the result of the appeal to the House of Lords which, I understand, will be heard at an early date, I am unable to make any statement as to what action, if any, may be necessary.

Mr. BUCHANAN: In view of the fact that Parliament did mean that the first £1 should be exempt, and that that is the law in England, will the right hon. Gentleman write to the Glasgow Corporation asking them to carry out the law as it was intended that it should be carried out?

Sir G. COLLINS: The Glasgow Corporation in this matter must administer the Statute as interpreted by the Court of Law, and they have no authority, and indeed they would be acting illegally, to deal otherwise with this matter. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that we are dealing only with new cases.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a previous Government in similar circumstances intimated to the local authority that this was the

intention of the law and that it should be carried out, and that if they carried out the intention subsequent steps should be taken to indemnify them; and will he not take a similar decision in a case of this character?

Sir G. COLLINS: I will look into the matter again, but I am informed that they have no power to go beyond or behind the decision as interpreted in the Courts of Law.

Mr. BUCHANAN: To-night, if possible, I will call attention to this matter on the Adjournment.

SMALL HOLDING (WOODHOUSE, TARBERT).

Mr. G. HARDIE: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland why the new tenant of the registered small holding at Woodhouse, Tarbert, Argyll, has not been given the opportunity of cultivating the ground and putting in his crops?

Sir G. COLLINS: The holding to which the hon. Member refers is not situated on property under my control, and I am therefore unable to give him the information he desires.

Mr. HARDIE: Are not all those holdings registered at Edinburgh, and does not that Department come at all under the regulation of the right hon. Gentleman?

Sir G. COLLINS: The matter was inquired into, and I understand that this particular holding does not come under the jurisdiction of my Department.

Mr. HARDIE: Is it not a fact that, under the law of Scotland in relation to holdings, anyone taking a guarantee to hold for a year has the, protection of the Government Department of Scotland for that period?

Sir G. COLLINS: There are certain exceptions in particular cases in which that rule may be relaxed, and I think that this is one of those exceptions.

Mr. HARDIE: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether Captain Campbell applied for a grant under the provisions of the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1926, at the request of Angus Shaw, so that improvements could be carried out at Woodhouse, Tarbert, in keeping with the improvements on the same estate?

Sir G. COLLINS: I am informed by the County Council of Argyll that no application has been received from Captain Campbell for a grant under the Housing (Rural Workers) Acts in respect of the improvement of Woodhouse Cottage, Tarbert.

Mr. HARDIE: Is the right hon Gentleman aware that the whole idea behind this has been to reserve that land for pheasants, and that already pheasants have been put there this season in order that there should be shooting upon land which was formerly a fine piece of cultivated land giving a good return?

Sir G. COLLINS: I have no knowledge of that.

Mr. HARDIE: If I give the right hon. Gentleman the knowledge, will he act?

Sir G. COLLINS: As far as it lies within my power.

POLICE PROCNUDINGS (EDINBURGH).

Mr. McGOVERN: asked the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been drawn to the violent assault on Renee Houston at an Edinburgh theatre, where she was dragged from her dressing-room, forced into a waiting, motor car by Edinburgh students, that she suffers from injuries to her body and was left in a hysterical condition of collapse; whether he will take steps to ensure that the law will be set in motion against the persons responsible for this outrage?

The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. T. M. Cooper): Yes, Sir. I have already taken action with regard to this regrettable occurrence, two persons having been apprehended and brought before the Sheriff on Saturday, and a third on Monday. The number of persons who may be implicated directly or indirectly is considerable, and, pending completion of the police investigations now in progress, I am not in a position to decide what further action may be necessary.

Mr. McGOVERN: While thanking the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the speedy and energetic action in this case, and also appreciating the fact that students have rendered very good service in many charitable causes, I should like to ask him whether he will assure the public that the police authorities in future will be instructed to see that persons are

not embarrassed, molested, insulted or assaulted when they are either without the means, or have not the inclination, to contribute to funds in the way that has been done in the public streets of our cities in recent times?

Mr. DENVILLE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is considered satisfactory that, in a case of this sort, the accused should be offered a £5 bail, and whether he is also aware that in any other country but this, kidnappers would be taken to the nearest lamp-post and strung up?

CASUAL LABOUR (GLASGOW).

Mr. BUCHANAN: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that Mrs. Colquhoun, of 27, McKinlay Street, Glasgow, was sent by the Glasgow South Side exchange to a situation for one day of 11 hours' work for which the Glasgow Corporation paid her only 3s. 6d., out of which, after paying her travelling expenses and insurance, she was left with 1s. 3d. net; that if she had remained unemployed she would have received 3s. for the day, and that her benefit was threatened to be stopped unless she went to the situation; and whether in future he will ensure that such employment will not be a reason for stopping benefit, and that no Employment Exchanges shall send any person to be employed by the Glasgow Corporation at such low wages?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead): I have received a report on this case. According to my information the remuneration of the situation which the Glasgow Corporation offered Mrs. Colquhoun was 3s. 6d. in cash wages together with three meals. I understand that this is the usual daily rate paid to casual waitresses employed in the public park cafes of the corporation. When this employment was offered to Mrs. Colquhoun she said that she would have household duties to perform which would prevent her accepting work on that day, and it was pointed out to her that the question arose whether, in those circumstances, she could satisfy the availability condition for the receipt of unemployment benefit. I do not think it would be proper for Employment Exchanges to refrain from bringing to the notice of applicants opportunities of work notified


by employers. As the hon. Member knows, the question of title to unemployment benefit is decided by the independent statutory authorities.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is it the policy of the Department—in this case it is undeniable—that the lady should receive in net wages 1s. 3d. while her unemployment benefit would have been 3s.? Is it not possible for his Department, seeing that for holidays trade unions demand at least time and a-half, to ask this Labour majority to see that the lady shall not suffer in this way?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: The Government cannot be held responsible for the wages which the Glasgow Corporation give to its employés and, as I have said in the latter part of my reply, it is obviously the duty of the Employment Exchange to bring to the notice of applicants work which may exist in the district. The question as to the suitability of the work is one for the independent statutory authorities.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Seeing that this is sweated employment, is it not the duty of the Government to deal with the matter?

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

PIT-HEAD PRICER.

Miss WARD: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he can now give information as to the average pit-head prices received in the first quarter of this year compared with the last quarter of 1935?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Captain Crookshank): Complete particulars for the first quarter of this year will not be available for some time, but such figures as have been received indicate that in January and February, 1936, the average pit-head proceeds were about 14s. 10d. per ton disposable commercially as compared with 13s. 11½d. in the December quarter of 1935.

Miss WARD: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman give an assurance that detailed figures will be available before we discuss the details of the central selling scheme?

Captain CROOKSHANK: I cannot possibly give an assurance on that matter,

because I do not know when the discussion is going to take place, and it takes a long time to collect these figures.

Miss WARD: Will the Secretary for Mines hurry them up?

REORGANISATION COMMISSION.

Mr. McGOVERN: asked the Secretary for Mines the names of the members of the Coal Reorganisation Commission; the amounts paid to each member from the formation up to the latest date; and whether the committee is still operating?

Captain CROOKSHANK: The Chairman of the Commission is Sir Ernest Gowers and the members are Mr. Lawrence Holt, Mr. Joseph Jones, Sir Felix Pole and Sir William Whyte. With regard to the second part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on 11th February to the hon. Member for Seaham Harbour (Mr. Shinwell). Since then the normal increments have accrued. The answer to the last part of the question is in the affirmative.

Mr. McGOVERN: Can the hon. And gallant Member give more recent figures?

Captain CROOKSHANK: I gave figures up to 31st January the other day, and that is only a few months since. If the hon. Member wants the difference between these months I shall be ready to give them to him.

Mr. McGOVERN: That is the object of putting down the question. I frequently put down questions asking for information and am put off in this way. I resent it.

PIT-PROPS.

Captain DOWER: asked the Secretary for Mines what rate of increase has there been over the last five years in the coal pits of Great Britain in the use of steel rather than timber props, bars, arches, and other coalpit requirement; and what is the estimated increase in the rate for the next five and 10 years?

Captain CROOKSHANK: The increase in the use of steel supports has been very substantial but the available information, which has been published in the reports of His Majesty's inspectors, is not sufficient to enable any general statistical comparisons to be made, having regard


to the many factors involved. Information as to the increased use of steel for other pit purposes is not available. As regards the last part of the question, I do not consider it possible to make any reliable estimates.

ROYALTIES.

Mr. SHINWELL: asked the Secretary for Mines whether any offer has been made by the owners of coal royalties to transfer their rights to the State, and at what price?

Captain CROOKSHANK: The Mineral Owners' Joint Committee have informed the Government that, while they are still opposed in principle to the compulsory purchase of coal royalties by the State, they are prepared, on the assumption that the mineral owners will receive fair compensation, to render such assistance as is in their power in connection with the framing of the Government's proposals; and they have suggested that a fair price for the minerals to be purchased would be £150,000,000.

Mr. SHINWELL: Are the Government proposing to concede the claim of the mineral royalty owners?

Captain CROOKSHANK: The hon. Member must not try to anticipate the terms of the Bill.

Mr. SHINWELL: May I ask what point has been reached in the negotiations Have the Government given a flat refusal to the demand, or do they propose to favourably consider it?

Mr. MATHERS: Will the Secretary for Mines say—

HON. MEMBERS: Answer.

Mr. SPEAKER: We have done only 35 Questions in three-quarters of an hour.

IMPERIAL DEFENCE (DOMINIONS).

Mr. DAY: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he will give the House any information as to the manner in which any of the Dominions are increasing or expanding their defence forces?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): As regards Canada, I

understand that defence expenditure in the year 1934–35 showed an increase of over 2,500,000 dollars as compared with the expenditure for the previous year, and that this expenditure is being generally maintained in the current year, with some further increased provision for the Air Force. His Majesty's Government in the Commonwealth of Australia are at present engaged in carrying out a three-year programme of defence expansion which is due to be completed at the end of the financial year 1936–37. The total cost is understood to be in the region of £20,000.000 (Australian). For full particulars of this programme I would refer the hon. Member to the speech by the Commonwealth Minister of Defence on 2nd December, 1935, of which I should be happy to send him a copy, if he so desires. Proposals for strengthening the defences of the Union of South Africa have recently been announced by the Union Minister of Defence in a. speech in the House of Assembly on 27th April, reports of which appeared in the Press here on the following day.

Mr. DAY: Can the Secretary of State say whether any of that expenditure is for Naval or Air Force armaments?

Mr. MacDONALD: In Australia the main provision is for naval expenditure, and in the case of South Africa I understand that the greater part is for Air Force expansion, but perhaps the hon. Member will wait until I can send him the full particulars I have promised.

Mr. GEORGE GRIFFITHS: Are they going to supply butter instead of margarine there?

SOUTHERN RHODESIA (NATIVE PREACHERS BILL).

Mr. THURTLE: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether the Native Preachers Bill, brought forward in the Southern Rhodesian Legislature, has been withdrawn or is being proceeded with?

Mr. M. MacDONALD: I have been informed that this Bill has been withdrawn.

Mr. THURTLE: Does that mean that nothing is going to be done to curb the activities of Jehovah's witnesses?

Oral Answers to Questions — AFFORESTATION.

SPRUCES, LAKE DISTRICT.

Captain DOWER: asked the hon. and gallant Member for Rye, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, by what date will the spruces which have been planted and which are now being planted by the Forestry Commissioners in the Lake district be ripe for felling; and what other commercial use than for pit props has the spruce which the Forestry Commissioners plant?

Colonel Sir GEORGE COURTHOPE (for the Forestry Commissioners): The spruces will arrive at maturity for felling in 60–70 years. Thinnings commence at about the twentieth year and are repeated periodically thereafter. Spruce timber is used for numerous commercial purposes, for example, scaffold and other poles, dockyard shorings, bond shooks, saw timber and wood pulp.

Captain DOWER: Will the hon. and gallant Member bear in mind that pit props, which is one of the principal uses for this timber, will be no longer required by the time these trees are ready to be used?

Sir G. COURTHOPE: It is only the thinnings which are used for pit props, not the final crop.

DUNNERDALE.

Captain DOWER: asked the hon. and gallant Member for Rye, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, how many trees has the Forestry Commission planted in Dunnerdale up to the present; how many are sycamore or other broad-leaf trees and how many are conifers; and will he state whether the Council for the Preservation of Rural England was consulted as to the lay-out of these trees before they were planted?

Sir G. COURTHOPE: Of the area selected for planting this season approximately 30 acres have been planted with 51,000 conifers, 20 acres have been set aside for broad-leaved species, which are not at present available, and will be planted later. The Joint Committee of the Forestry Commission and the Council for the Preservation of Rural England have been consulted as to the general principles to be followed.

Captain DOWER: Is the hon. and gallant Member aware that the information sent to me is that the Council for the Preservation of Rural England was not consulted until after they had been planted?

Sir G. COURTHOPE: Then the hon. and gallant Member's information is incorrect.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

ROAD FUND GRANTS (DURHAM COUNTY).

Mr. W. JOSEPH STEWART: asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the heavy highway rates in Durham County, he will go into the question of grants from the Road Fund, not to be on any specific percentage basis, but that the local authority's highway rates should be stabilised and that all other money necessary for the maintenance, repairs, and improvements of the highways, together with the costs of any new highways or bridges constructed, should be borne by the Road Fund or other national source?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Captain Austin Hudson): Apart from other considerations, the hon. Member's suggestion does not appear to be one which could be adopted without transferring from the local authority their responsibility for and control of their highways. Such a change, even if it were thought to be practicable or desirable, could not be limited to a particular county.

Mr. STEWART: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that owing to the low rateable value, the rate in Durham County is 3s. 10d. in the £ against an average of 3s. in the £ for England and Wales, and is he prepared to give increased grants so as to make the highway rate there comparable with the rest of the country?

Captain HUDSON: I think that is a different question. The Question on the Paper deals with another subject altogether.

NORTH END ROAD, FULHAM.

Mr. ASTOR: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is contemplating any change as regards the street traders


in the North End Road, Fulham; and whether he has yet taken any action in this matter in the interests of traffic?

Captain HUDSON: I have asked the council of the Metropolitan borough of Fulham as the responsible authority for licensing the street traders in the North End Road, Fulham, to examine the possibility of deleting this street from the list of streets in which street traders are allowed to trade.

PIGS MARKETING SCHEME (LINCOLNSHIRE).

Mr. LIDDALL: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware of the great possibilities of the pigs marketing scheme in Lincolnshire providing that a bacon factory is erected in that county; and will he recommend the Bacon Development Board to grant a licence for the erection of such a factory in what is the second largest county in England?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Ramsbotham): In a reply given yesterday to a question by my hon. Friend, my right hon. Friend indicated the position with regard to the establishment of a bacon factory in Lincolnshire. There is nothing I can usefully add to that answer.

Mr. LIDDALL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Bacon Development Board will come to a decision to-morrow and that the success of the Pigs Marketing Scheme of the Government largely depends upon whether a bacon factory is erected in the second largest county in England?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: If the decision of the Bacon Development Board tomorrow is not satisfactory to the applicants, they will have the right to go to arbitration.

AIR MAILS (SCANDINAVIA).

Mr. LEWIS: asked the Postmaster-General upon what date representatives of British Continental Airways were first informed that no tender from them for the carriage of air mails to Scandinavia would be considered?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Walter Womersley): The company was formally informed to this effect on 25th January of this year, but I understand that a prior intimation had been conveyed to them by the Air Ministry.

ITALY AND ABYSSINIA.

Mr. SANDYS: asked the Prime Minister in view of his declaration on 18th April to the effect that collective security without military sanctions is unworkable and of the impracticability of imposing military sanctions at this stage of the Italo-Abyssinian war, whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to urge at Geneva the abandonment of economic sanctions?

The PRIME. MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): Future policy with regard to the Italo-Abyssinian dispute will be a matter for joint consideration by the States concerned at the forthcoming meeting of the League Council. I cannot make any further statement this afternoon.

Mr. SANDYS: In view of the fact that the Prime Minister's statement referred to differs materially from previous statements made by the Foreign Secretary, can the Prime Minister say whether this denotes a change of attitude on the part of His Majesty's Government towards the question of collective security?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have nothing to add to the answer I have given.

Mr. COCKS: Is the Government's policy still to support the policy of collective dishonour? [Laughter.] Hon. Members may well laugh: there is no honour at all.

Mr. SANDYS: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government are satisfied that sanctions are achieving the purpose for which they were imposed; and, if not, whether they will urge at Geneva the reconsideration of the League's policy in the light of experience?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Viscount Cranborne): The situation that has arisen as the result of recent events in Abyssinia will form the subject of joint consideration by the States concerned at the forthcoming meeting of the Council.

BRITHISH FILM INSTITUTE.

Mr. VYVYAN ADAMS: asked the Lord President of the Council whether he has authorised the payment of any grant in respect of the year 1936 to the British Film Institute out of the Cinematograph Fund; if so, what is the amount of such grant; arid whether, in view of the complaints made respecting the work of the institute, he will make a statement on the matter?

The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): A grant of £7,000 from the Cinematograph Fund to the British Film Institute was authorised for the current year. As regards the last part of the question, I am not clear what complaints my hon. Friend has in mind. The work of the Institute generally, however, is at present under consideration, but I am not in a position to make a statement on the subject.

Mr. ADAMS: Is any action proposed in this matter?

Mr. MacDONALD: We must await the results of the inquiry.

PRIMARY COMMODITIES (INDEX).

Mr. BARNES: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will submit a statement of the primary commodities that have increased in price by 45 per cent. Since 1932?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): The Bank of England index of primary products is calculated from the wholesale prices of the following commodities: Wheat, maize, sugar, bacon, tea, copper, iron, lead, silver, tin, cotton, hides, linseed, rubber, wool. The index was 100 on 19th September, 1931, 96 at the beginning of July, 1932, and 147.8 on 18th April, 1936.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

ESTATE DUTY (ROYAL AIR FORCE).

Captain HAROLD BALFOUR: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the number of estates from officers and other ranks of the Royal Air Force who have been killed while on flying duty which have paid duty to the Treasury during 1935, and the total amount so received?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The number of estates of officers and other ranks of the Royal Air Force killed on flying duty which paid Death Duties during 1935 was 12, and the amount paid was £46,403. The above figures include officers of the Auxiliary Air Force.

COSMETICS (DUTY).

Marquess of TITCHFIELD: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any information about the annual expenditure on lipstick, face powder, and other cosmetics; and whether he has considered these articles as a possible source of revenue?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As regards the first part of the question, I have no information which would enable me to distinguish the annual expenditure upon the articles named. As regards the second part, imported cosmetics are already taxed under the tariff, but as at present advised I am not prepared to propose the imposition of an Excise Duty on home products.

SCOTTISH BANKNOTES.

Mr. McGOVERN: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is prepared to abolish all Scottish banknotes and substitute notes of legal tender which will be fully accepted in England and Wales?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer is in the negative.

Mr. McGOVERN: In view of the inconvenience caused to many travellers from the North arid the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has already declared that these Scottish notes are not legal tender, will he riot substitute for them a universal note to be accepted all over Britain?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I wish not unnecessarily to affront Scottish opinion, but the hon. Member is no doubt aware that the Bank of England notes for £1 and 10s. are legal tender in Scotland.

Mr. GUY: May I ask my right hon. Friend how he justifies the position in which Bank of England notes are legal tender in Scotland and Bank of Scotland notes are not legal tender in England?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: On historical grounds.

INCOME TAX(POTATO MERCHANTS).

Mr. T. JOHNSTON: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the attention of the Treasury has been drawn to a practice whereby merchants may hire from farmers land carrying growing potatoes, but upon the profits of these transactions neither Income Tax nor Super-tax is paid by the merchants; and whether he proposes to take any steps to prevent this form of tax evasion in the future?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Under the provisions of the Income Tax Acts, potato growers are assessable under Schedule B on the annual value of the land they occupy and not upon profits. Where potato growers are also merchants dealing in potatoes, they are further assessable to Income Tax under Schedule D and to Surtax in respect of any profits arising from their merchanting business. Any alteration of the basis of assessment under Schedule B would, of course, necessitate legislation.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Has the right hon. Gentleman any reason to believe that the sums which escape annually are very considerable?

Sir ERNEST SHEPPERSON: Is it not a fact that Schedule B is paid by the farmer in these transactions and that Schedule D is paid by the merchant, and that not only is there no evasion of Income Tax, but double Income Tax is paid?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I understand that the question addressed to me refers to merchants who are also growers.

Mr. LIDDALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that if the potato grower of this country has any more taxation to bear he soon will not grow potatoes?

UNITED STATES (DEBTS).

Mr. MARKHAM: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any recent attempts has been made to secure any payment by the United States of America or the Southern States of North and South Carolina and Georgia of the debts incurred during the course of the American Civil War to this country?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir.

Mr. MARKHAM: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer consider proposing to the United States that these debts should be formally cancelled in return for cancellation of part of the British debt to America?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir.

FOOTBALL POOLS.

Mr. HEPWORTH: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the fact that football pool promoters are now starting mail-order business on a large scale; and whether, to safeguard the interests of smaller traders whose customers are obtained by different methods, he will make inquiry as to whether this type of business makes an adequate return to the Exchequer or whether it should be penalised?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Football pool promoters are liable to Income Tax on their profits in the same way as any other concern, and I know of no reason why there should be any differentiation against them in this matter.

HOUSE PROPERTY (ANNUAL VALUE).

Mr. CRAVEN-ELLIS: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Treasury insist upon independent valuations of house property made under Section 138 of the Income Tax Act, 1918, being enforced; and under what statutory authority does he act when fixing an annual value, which is different to that in the independent valuation?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Valuations of property under Section 138 of the Income Tax Act, 1918, take place only where, on an appeal against an assessment under Schedule A or Schedule B, the General Commissioners direct such a valuation to be made, either if they consider it necessary, or if the appellant so requires. The determination of the appeal is a matter for the General Commissioners, subject to the right of either the appellant or the Inland Revenue to demand the statement of a case for the opinion of the High Court on a point of law, and the Treasury has no authority to take any action in the matter. The second part of the question, therefore, does not arise.

Mr. CRAVEN-ELLIS: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider it fair that


house property which is occupied by an owner is assessed at £24 and that when the same house comes to be occupied by a tenant it is assessed at £55, and in a case which I can give the right hon. Gentleman it became occupied by another occupier and the assessment went back to £24?

INCOME AND EXPENDITURE.

Mr. CRAVEN-ELLIS: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total national income for the years 1923, 1925, 1929, 1931, and 1935; and what was the expenditure upon social services and the purchasing power of the £ sterling for the same years, taking the year 1913 at 20s.?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I regret that no official estimates of the national income are available. For the expenditure on social services in past years I would refer my hon. Friend to the annual return of Public Social Services. Full particulars are not yet available for the year 1935–36, but the amounts of the principal grants from the Exchequer are to be found on page 8 of the Financial Statement, 1936–37 (House of Commons Paper No. 77 of 1936). I will not take upon myself the selection of a measure of the purchasing power of the pound, but my hon. Friend will find a continuous table of the cost of living, based on July, 1914, from 1920 to April, 1936, in the Ministry of Labour Gazette for April, 1936 (page 148).

Mr. THORNE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any reason why he has not this information about the national income; is he aware that there are many statisticians who can give it; and is it not the case that it is something bordering on £4,000,000,000 at the present time?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am afraid I could not answer all those questions.

GENERAL ELECTION (COST).

Mr. DAY: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what was the cost to the Exchequer, including capital expenditure incurred by the Office of Works and the Stationery Office, owing to the General Election in November, 1935?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. W. S. Morrison): The accounts for the last General Election

have not been finally settled, but the total cost will amount to approximately £480,000. This figure includes a charge in respect of the capital expenditure incurred by the Office of Works and the Stationery Office on the supply of election equipment and also includes the estimated cost of free postage facilities provided by the General Post Office.

Mr. DAY: Does that figure take into account any of the deposits that were forfeited?

Mr. MORRISON: No, Sir; those items appear on the other side of the balance sheet. They amounted to £12,000, which was paid into the Exchequer.

Mr. RADFORD: Does my hon. Friend not agree that the results, from the nation's point of view, were well worth a far greater expenditure?

TEA (WITHDRAWALS FROM BOND).

Colonel ROPNER: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he will state the quantity of tea withdrawn from bond by the Co-operative Society for each of the four weeks ended 2nd April; and the average weekly withdrawals for the six months ended 24th March?

Mr. W. S. MORRISON: No, Sir. It would be contrary to established practice to disclose information of this nature in regard to transactions of individual traders.

NORTHERN IRELAND (CIVIL SERVANTS).

Mr. BANFIELD: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, as the salaries of Imperial civil servants employed on duties in Northern Ireland are paid out of the revenue collected in and subsequently credited to Northern Ireland, he will state on what grounds civil servants in Northern Ireland who derive their remuneration from the same source are not accorded privileges in respect of concessions as to age limits at the open competitive examination for appointment to the reserved services which are granted to such Imperial civil servants?

Mr. W. S. MORRISON: I am not prepared to accept the premise that employés of the Northern Ireland Government who are paid from the Exchequer


of Northern Ireland and home civil servants paid from the Exchequer of the United Kingdom derive their remuneration from the same source; nor, as previously stated, am I prepared to extend to other services the concession which is allowed to established members of the home Civil Service in respect of age limits at open competitive examinations for entry into the latter service.

Mr. BANFIELD: Is the hon. And learned Gentleman aware that there is grave dissatisfaction among civil servants in Northern Ireland; and will he have inquiry made into it?

Mr. MORRISON: The matter was brought up before, and I would only say that members of the Civil Service in Northern Ireland have their careers to make in that service, and that it is a different service from that which applies in the case of England and Scotland.

ALBERT HALL (LETTINGS).

Mr. MANDER: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that a public body, the Corporation of the Royal Albert Hall of Arts and Science, have been refusing to let the hall on political grounds; and whether he will take steps by legislation, or otherwise, to see that equal opportunity is given to all citizens to make use of this building for their meetings?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Simon): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, but in any case the proprietors of the Albert Hall have a discretion as to the letting of the premises, and I have no jurisdiction to intervene in the exercise of that discretion.

Mr. MANDER: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it very improper for a body of this description to exercise political discrimination in the letting of the hall?

DANZIG.

Mr. MANDER: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether steps have now been taken by the Danzig Senate to carry out the resolutions of the League of Nations of 24th January last;

and whether the four necessary decrees have been passed and published?

Viscount CRANBORNE: As my right hon. Friend stated in the House on 30th March, in reply to a similar question asked by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies), the Danzig Senate issued the four decrees in question on 20th February last. My right hon. Friend has asked the Secretary-General of the League to supply him with official translations of these decrees as soon as possible. As soon as these are received, copies will be placed in the Library of the House.

REFUGEES (INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION).

Mr. MANDER: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is the intention of the Government to sign and ratify the convention on the International Status of Refugees, signed at Geneva on 28th October, 1933?

Viscount CRANBORNE: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for High Wycombe (Sir A. Knox) on 29th April last, to which I have nothing to add.

TREATY OF LOCARNO.

Mr. EMMOTT: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that, on 10th April at Geneva, Baron Aloisi, speaking on behalf of the Italian Government, addressed to each of the signatories of the Locarno Treaty a formal inquiry whether the presence of Italy is wished for and whether her collaboration in the work of European reconstruction on the basis of a new Locarno is desired; whether His Majesty's Government has given an answer to this inquiry; and, if it has, what is the nature of that answer?

Viscount CRANBORNE: Yes, Sir. The reply which my right hon. Friend gave to Baron Aloisi on 10th April on behalf of His Majesty's Government was that they, like the French and Belgian Governments, were awaiting the reply of the Italian Government to the Text of Proposals of 19th March. It was for the Italian Government and not for him to decide if they were in agreement with these Proposals.

Miss RATHBONE: Have the Government considered, in the light of recent experience, whether Italy's signature to any future treaties is likely to be of more value than her signature, under the Triple Alliance, was to Germany and Austria before 1914?

Mr. COCKS: Will the Noble Lord inform the Italian Government that their collaboration is not desired by the British people

Mr. EMMOTT: Will the Noble Lord refuse to do anything of the sort?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. ATTLEE: May I ask the Prime Minister how far he proposes to go to, night in the event of the Motion on the Paper being carried?

The PRIME MINISTER: We propose to move the Suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule in order to obtain the Committee Stage of the Civil List Resolutions. We hope that it may also

be possible to obtain the Committee stage of the Pensions (Governors of Dominions, &c.) Bill, but, in any event, we hope to obtain the Second Reading of the Weights and Measures Bill, which, I understand, meets with a, large measure of support from all parts of the House. That Bill, after Second Reading, will be referred to a Standing Committee for full consideration.

Mr. ATTLEE: May I take it that the Pensions (Governors of Dominions, &c.) Bill will not be proceeded with, if it should be reached at a late hour?

The PRIME MINISTER: We shall certainly not press that if it is not reached until a late hour.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]
The House divided: Ayes, 291; Noes, 103.

Division No. 162]
AYES
[3.50 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Cary, R. A.
Duckworth. W. R. (Moss Side)


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Castiereagh, Viscount
Dugdale Major T. L.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Cautley, Sir H. S.
Duggan, H J.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Duncan, J. A. L.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Dunglass, Lord


Albery, I. J.
Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Dunne, P. R. R.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Eckersiey, P. T.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Channon, H.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Chapman, A. (Ruthergien)
Ellis, Sir G.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Elliston, G. S.


Assheton, R.
Christie, J. A.
Elmley, Viscount


Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover)
Clarke. F. E.
Emmott, C. E. G. C.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Clarry, Sir Reginald
Emrys-Evans, P. V.


Atholl, Duchess of
Cobb, Sir C. S.
Entwistle, C. F.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir G. P.
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Colman, N. C. D.
Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)


Balniel, Lord
Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J.
Everard W. L.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Elides, Sir H.


Baxter, A. Beverley
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Findlay, Sir E.


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff(W'st'r S.G'gs)
Fleming. E. L.


Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)
Cooper, Rt. Hon. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Fox, Sir G W. G.


Bernays, R. H.
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Furness. S. N.


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Courthope, Col. Sir G. L.
Ganzoni Sir J.


Bird, Sir R. B.
Craven-Ellis, W.
Gilmour Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon.[...] J.


Blair, Sir R.
Critchley, A.
Gluckstein. L. H.


Bllndell, Sir.J.
Crooke, J. S.
Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.


Bossom, A. C.
Crookshank, Capt, H. F. C.
Goldie, N. B.


Boulton, W. W.
Cross, R. H.
Goodman, Col. A. W.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Crossley, A. C.
Gower, Sir R. V.


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Crowder, J. F. E.
Graham. Captain A. C. (Wirral)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.
Cruddas, Col. B.
Granville, E. L.


Brass, Sir W.
Davidson, Rt. Hon. Sir J. C. C.
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovll)
Gridley, Sir, A. B.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Davison, Sir W. H.
Grimston, R. V.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
De Chair, S. S.
Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and [...]adnor)


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
De la Bére, R.
Guinness, T. L. E. B.


Bull, B. B.
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Gunston, Capt. D. W.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Denville, Alfred
Guy, J. C. M.


Burghley, Lord
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Donner, P. W.
Hanbury, Sir C.


Burton, Col. H. W.
Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
Hannah. I. C.


Caine, G. R. Hall
Dower, Capt. A. V. G.
Hannon Sir P. J. H.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Drewe, C.
Harbord, A.


Carver, Major W. H.
Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)
Harris, Sir P. A.




Hartington, Marquess of
Markham, S. F.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Harvey, G.
Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.
Shakespeare, G. H.


Heligers, Captain F. F. A.
Maxwell, S. A.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Mayhew, Lt,-Col. J.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.


Hepworth, J.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Herbert, Captain S. (Abbey)
Moreing, A. C.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Morgan, R H.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Holdsworth, H.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H.
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)


Holmes, J. S.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)
Smithers, Sir W.


Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Somerset. T.


Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Munro, P.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H. H.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.


Hulbert, N. J.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G.
Spender-Clay, Lt.-Cl. Rt. Hn. H. H.


Hunter, T.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Hurd, Sir P. A.
Owen, Major G.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'I'd)


Jackson, Sir H.
Palmer, G. E. H.
Stourton, Hon. J. J.


James, Wing-Commander A. W.
Peake, O.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Jones, L. (Swansea, W.)
Peat, C. U.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Peters, Dr. S. J.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Kerr, J. G. (Scottish Universities)
Petherick, M.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)


Kimball, L.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Sueter, Rear Admiral Sir M. F.


Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Porritt, R. W.
Sutcliffe, H.


Latham, Sir P.
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Leckie,.J. A.
Procter, Major H. A.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Leech, Dr. J. W.
Radford, E. A.
Thomas,.J. P. L. (Hereford)


Leigh, Sir J.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Thomsen, Sir.J. D. W.


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Ramsbotham, H.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Ramsden, Sir E.
Touche, G. C.


Lewis, O.
Rankin, R.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Liddall, W. S.
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Lindsay, K. M.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.


Liewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Turton, R. H.


Lioyd, G. W.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Wakefield, W. W.


Loftus, P. C.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Lyons, A. M.
Ropner, Colonel L.
Wallace, Captain Euan


MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Ward, Irene (Wallsend)


MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Scot. U.)
Rothschild, J. A. de
Warrender, Sir V.


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Runciman. Rt. Hon. W.
Wayland, Sir W. A.


McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)
Wells, S. R.


McKie, J. H.
Russell. S. H. M. Darwen)
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Maclay, Hon. J. P.
Salmon, Sir I.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.
Salt, E. W.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Macquisten, F. A.
Samuel, Sir A. M. (Farnham)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Maitland, A.
Sandeman, Sir N. S.
Wise, A. R.


Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Mander, G. le M.
Sandys, E. D.



Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Savery, Servington
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Scott, Lord William
Sir George Penny and Lieut-Cofonel




Sir A. Lambert Ward.




NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Gallacher, W.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)


Adamson, W. M.
Gardner, B. W.
McGhee, H. G.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'Isbr.)
Garro-Jones, G. M.
McGovern, J.


Ammon, C. G.
Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
MacLaren, A.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Maclean, N.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
MacNeill, Weir, L.


Banfield, J. W.
Hardie, G. D.
Mainwaring, W. H.


Barnes, A. J.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Marklew, E.


Barr, J.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Marshall, F.


Batey, J.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Mathers, G.


Benson, G.
Hollins, A.
Maxton, J.


Brooke, W.
Hopkin, D.
Messer, F.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Jagger, J.
Montague, F.


Buchanan, G.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Morrison, R. C (Tottenham, N.)


Burke, W. A.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Naylor, T. E.


Chater, D.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Paling, W.


Cocks, F. S.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Parker, H. J. H.


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Kelly, W. T.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Daggar, G.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Potts,.J.


Dalton, H.
Kirby, B. V.
Price, M. P.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Kirkwood, D.
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Lathan, G.
Ritson, J.


Day, H.
Lawson, J. J.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Leach, W.
Rowson, G.


Ede, J. C.
Lee, F.
Sexton T. M.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Leonard, W.
Shinwell, E.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Logan, D. G.
Short, A.


Frankel, D.
Lunn, W
Simpson, F. B.







Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)
Thorne, W.
Westwood, J.


Smith, E. (Stoke)
Thurtle, E.
Whiteley. W.


Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)
Tinker, J. J.
Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)


Sorensen, R. W.
Viant, S. P.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Stephen, C.
Walkden, A. G.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
Walker, J.



Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Watson, W. McL.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Groves and Mr. Charleton.


Question put, and agreed to.

MEMBER SWORN.

A Member made and subscribed the Affirmation required by Law.

BILL PRESENTED.

COAL MINES BILL,

"to enable the duties imposed upon the Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission by Part II of the Coal Mines Act, 1930, to be more effectively discharged; to provide for the continuance of Part I of the Coal Mines Act, 1930; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid," presented by Mr. Runciman; supported by the Attorney-General, the Lord Advocate, and Captain Crookshank; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 99.]

ROAD TRAFFIC (DRIVING LICENCES) BILL.

Reported, with an Amendment, from Standing Committee B.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of Proceedings to be printed.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered upon Friday, and to be printed. [Bill 98.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

PUBLIC SEWERS (CONTRIBUTIONS BY FRONTAGERS).

That they propose that the Joint Committee do meet in the Chairman of Committee's Committee Room, House of Lords, on Wednesday, the 13th of May next, at half-past Ten o'clock.

Lords Message considered—

Ordered,
That the Committee, appointed by this House do meet the Lords Committee as proposed by their Lordships."—[Sir G. Penny.]
Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

SELECTION (COMMITTEE ON UNOPPOSED BILLS) (PANEL).

Sir Henry Cautley reported from the Committee of Selection: That they had discharged the following Member from the Panel appointed to serve on the Committee on Unopposed Bills: Colonel Clifton Brown and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Astor.

Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Sir Henry Cautley reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B: Sir Frank Sanderson; and had appointed in substitution: Captain Macnamara.

Sir Henry Cautley further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Ten Members to Standing Committee B (in respect of the Pilotage Authorities (Limitation of Liability) Bill): Mr. David Morgan Adams, Lieut.-Colonel Sandeman Allen, Captain Crawford Browne, Dr. Burgin, Mr. Duncan, Mr. Gibbins, Sir Paul Latham, Mr. Muff, Mr. Petherick, and Sir Douglas Thomson.

STANDING COMMITTEE C.

Sir Henry Cautley further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee C: Mr. Charles Brown and Mr. Leonard; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Burke and Mr. Chater.

Sir Henry Cautley further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Twenty-five Members to Standing Committee C (in respect of the Midwives Bill): Viscountess Astor, Mr. Michael Beaumont, Sir Edward Campbell, Sir Cyr: I Cobb, Mr. Arthur Duckworth, Mr. Edward Dunn, Captain Elliston, Sir Francis Fremantle, Mr. George Griffiths, Major Hills, Dr. Howitt,


Mr. Hulbert, Mr. Haydn Jones, Mr. Keeling, Sir Joseph Lamb, Mr. Leach, Mr. Leckie, Mr. Maitland, Miss Rathbone, Mr. Shakespeare, Mr. Silverman, Mrs. Tate, Mr. Viant, Miss Wilkinson, and Sir Kingsley Wood.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

MEMORIAL TO ADMIRAL OF THE FLEET EARL BEATTY.

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I beg to move,
That this House will, To-morrow, resolve itself into a Committee to consider an humble Address to His Majesty, praying that His Majesty will give directions that a monument be erected at the public charge to the memory of the late Admiral of the Fleet Earl Beatty, as an expression of the admiration of this House for his illustrious naval career and its gratitude for his devoted services to the State.
For the second time within a few months the House is being asked by me to pass a Motion of this description. I know it will gratefully pass this Motion for a permanent memorial to the late Admiral of the Fleet Earl Beatty, as an expression of its sense of gratitude to the second of the two great sailors who bore on their shoulders the immense responsibility of command in the Great War. For nearly half the Great War Lord Beatty served under Lord Jellicoe. From November, 1916, until the end of the War he bore upon his shoulders that almost intolerable responsibility, the chief responsibility for the safety of our country. They were both great sailors, different of course, but those differences may well be explored by the historians. For me and for the House to-day, we seek not to compare the measure, but merely to express our thankfulness that at the time of our country's need two such men as Jellicoe and Beatty were there to respond to the call.
As a sailor he was undoubtedly a figure which appealed to the imagination of the British people. There is no doubt that to our people, whether they live on the sea-coast, in the great towns, or inland, the Royal Navy is in some subtle way the repository of the spirit and the tradition of our nation; and there is no doubt that instinctively our people seemed to recognise in Lord Beatty the sure successor to those men whose names were so familiar to them and whose sayings have almost

passed into the conversation of our land. We think of Duncan, off the Texel, who, when he had taken soundings said: "I have taken the depth of the water and when the 'Venerable' goes down, my flag will still fly." We think of Grenville who, dying, gave orders to scuttle his ship with all on board her lest she should fall into the hands of the Spaniards. We think of Raleigh driving his little ships into Cadiz harbour and answering the guns of the Spanish forts with an insolent flourish of trumpets. We think of Nelson at the Nile, when he saw the ship of his great friend Troubridge run aground and he commiserated him, "while his more fortunate companions were in the full tide of happiness"; and at Copenhagen when he said, as the battle began, "It is warm work and this may be the last of any of us at any moment, but, mark you, I would not be elsewhere for thousands."
When one thinks of these things one feels instinctively how Beatty might have taken his stand by any one of these Admirals, and how, had he been in their place, what they said would have sprung naturally to his lips. In Beatty, fighting his battles as he did from an exposed position which he selected for himself on the compass platform high above the bridge, calm, unruffled and alert, our people rightly saw the embodiment of that persisting spirit of the Royal Navy that has lasted through the centuries and has been the glory of the Navy and the pride of our country, an inspiration not only to the men who served with him but to the people of this country through the darkest days.
When I think of Beatty as the people thought of him, I like to think of another aspect of him familiar to me but much less familiar to his countrymen. Although a public figure, although gifted with all those qualities that attract the admiration of mankind, spectacular qualities we might call them in some ways, yet the man himself was fundamentally a shy man, a man who disliked publicity, who never courted it, and who, I rejoice to think, took no part in any of the controversies that have raged since the War. He kept himself aloof from all those things. Men who worked with him have often told me of the deep impression made on them by his foresight, by his method and by the gift of sheer hard work that he brought to his profession,


all of which things were precedent to the prompt decision and the vigorous action for which the world knew him so well.
Those qualities and a mind attuned to statesmanship were given in full after the War, when he spent more than seven years at the Admiralty at a time of intense difficulty for any First Sea Lord, at a time when in the hands of any lesser man it might have been impossible to have accomplished what was done in the way it was done; for this great sailor, who had been in command of the greatest naval force the world has ever seen, had in those years immediately succeeding the War to turn the whole of his influence, the whole of his knowledge and the whole of his skill, to reducing that force to the very skeleton of what it had been, to see that after those reductions what was left was as efficient as it could he, on that comparatively slender scale, to see that all the changes of personnel that had to be made, the dismissals, were done—hardship there must have been in many cases—with as little hardship as was possible. These things he did and he served four or five separate Governments, all with the same devotion to duty and with the same loyalty. Those last years of his service to his country showed a man no less great in any way than he had been at the height of his power with the Grand Fleet.
When that work was done, for a short time he enjoyed such rest as was more than due to him, but in those last months, in failing health, there were two calls of personal duty to which he with his nature would not fail to respond. He followed his brother admiral, Lord Jellicoe, to his grave, and later, on the occasion when most of us saw him for the last time and were struck only too sadly by his appearance, he followed his beloved King on the last march through London. His gallant spirit is now at rest and it only remains for this House, as they will, to pay him with no dissentient voice that tribute that they reserve for men who have rendered superlative service to their country. There can be no greater honour to any man than that this House, as I have said on one previous occasion, should stand aside for a few brief moments from its constant strife and unite to pay its tribute to those who have deserved well of the State. This, I

am convinced to-day, we shall all do as one man in this House.

Mr. ATTLEE: I rise on behalf of the Opposition to support the Motion which has been so eloquently moved by the Prime Minister. My mind, like his, has gone back to that occasion only a few months ago when we were paying our tribute to Lord Jellicoe. Now we are considering the erection of a memorial to another great naval commander, Lord Beatty. One by one the great fighting leaders of the nation daring the Great War are passing away To many people the name of Beatty suggests a brilliant, impetuous leader, rushing into battle regardless of consequences. But he was far more than an impetuous and gallant leader. He was indeed brilliant, fearless and vigorous, but his valour was controlled by a. cool brain. In the heart of an action he could think swiftly and calmly. He would take risks, but only if the objects to be gained were commensurate. He was a born leader of men and had that gift of inspiring those who served under him with his own dauntless spirit. He was ever mindful of the welfare of those he commanded, both when at sea in the War and afterwards in time of peace. It was during his tenure as First Sea Lord that the Welfare Committees were set up for the men in the Navy. His name will be linked for ever with the achievements of the British Fleet in the Great War. He has taken his place with the great sea captains of the nation. For all those years after the War he served as Firs-, Sea Lord in most trying times, when inevitable Fleet reductions meant the infliction of hardship on his comrades in the Service. His monument, like that of Len d Jellicoe, will be a tribute not only to him but to the valour and devotion of all the men who served our country at sea during the Great War.

Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: I rise to support on behalf of my hon. and right hon. Friends the Motion before the House, and to echo the sentiments which have been so eloquently expressed by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition of admiration of the character and gratitude for the services of the great sailor to whose illustrious memory it is rightly proposed to erect a monument. None I think can doubt that history will assign to Lord Beatty a place in the company of Blake and Nelson and


of the greatest of our naval commanders some of whose names the Prime Minister was recalling to us this afternoon. Exactly what that place will be I agree with the Prime Minister it is not for us to attempt to estimate; but this I know, that I have never yet met an officer or naval rating who served under Lord Beatty who did not say so with a ring of pride in his voice. Of course we must erect a memorial of stone so that he who walks the streets of the capital of the Empire shall be reminded of its debt to a great man and a great leader of men. But his true memorial will be less tangible; it will be part of the traditions of the Service to which he devoted his life in peace and war. His strength, valour and ardour, controlled by a keen, cool and disciplined mind, were among the gifts which he brought to the Navy which it will not relinquish at his death, for so long as the British Navy sails the seas and so long as its fame endures the man we called Lord Beatty, the deeds he did and the inspiration he gave will be freshly remembered; and so long will he hold a place of honour in the hearts of the British people.

Resolved,
That this House will, To-morrow, resolve itself into a Committee to consider an humble Address to His Majesty, praying that His Majesty will give directions that a monument be erected at the public charge to the memory of the late Admiral of the Fleet Earl Beatty, as an expression of the admiration of this House for his illustrious naval career and its gratitude for his devoted services to the State.

ARGENTINE (SOUTH WALES COAL IMPORTS).

Mr. G. HALL.: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, before taking any action to terminate the AngloArgentine agreement, he will, in view of the importance of this market for coal exported from South Wales, take all necessary steps to maintain it?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I regret that I cannot at present add to the reply I gave to the hon. Member on 30th April.

TRIBUNALS OF INQUIRY (EVIDENCE) ACT, 1921.

4.19 p.m.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): I beg to move,
That it is expedient that a tribunal be established for inquiring into a definite matter of urgent public importance, that is to say, whether, and, if so, in what circumstances and by what persons, any unauthorised disclosure was made of information relating to the Budget for the present year or any use made of any such information for the purposes of private gain.
After the solemnity and the dignity of the proceedings which have just concluded, I very deeply regret to have to ask the House to attend to a matter of a very different character. It is common knowledge among hon. Members that business is often done at Lloyd's in what may be described as speculation upon the outcome of the Budget, and it is not surprising that in the circumstances of the present year some business of that kind should have been undertaken, for although it was not generally anticipated, I believe, that there was likely to he any new taxation, the public had not been without warning on the subject. In particular, the "Manchester Guardian" had prophesied increased taxation, and the bulletins of the Press Association which were issued to the newspapers had more than once indicated that further taxation might be expected. Therefore, there is nothing surprising in the fact of transactions of this kind taking place, and in ordinary circumstances I do not think they could have aroused any concern or given rise to any suspicion that there had been any leakage of Budget secrets—the preservation of which is a matter of tradition, on which we all pride ourselves—which to my knowledge has not occurred for very many years past. But in the course of the week after I had opened the Budget I received a communication from the Chairman of Lloyd's intimating that in his view and that of his colleagues there were some circumstances about the transactions that had taken place this year which indicated the possibility of a leakage of some kind.
I naturally took a grave view of that communication, coming from such an authority, and I thought it best to ask

the chairman to come to see me as soon as possible, in order that I might hear from him what was the nature of the evidence which had put in his mind the possibility of such a regrettable occurrence. I saw Mr. Dixey, the Chairman of Lloyd's, and upon what he told me I was convinced that this was a matter which could not be allowed to rest, and which must be probed right down to the very bottom. Accordingly, I asked Mr. Dixey to pursue his inquiries as far as he could, and as soon as possible to let me know what was the result of them. In due course I received an intimation that he was ready to see me, and I saw him on 1st May when he gave me the results of his investigations so far as he had been able to carry them. The results were by no means conclusive—they hardly could be in the circumstances—but they were sufficient, in my view, to constitute a prima facie case for further inquiry, and accordingly, on my so informing my colleagues, the Government decided that a full and impartial inquiry must take place and that the matter must be sifted until either the inaccuracy of the supposition was demonstrated or the fault was brought home to the right quarter. It did not appear to us, on examination of the possible alternatives, that any tribunal could be found more thoroughly impartial in character and more fully clothed with powers to obtain all the information available than a tribunal of the kind which I have indicated, clothed with the powers which would be given it by a Resolution of both Houses of Parliament in the terms of the one I have read to the House.
I do not think it is necessary for me to say much more on the subject, but I must make some allusion to the observations made by the Leader of the Opposition and the right hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) the other day, which suggested a clear anxiety on their part lest there should be any suspicion in the minds the public that this particular form of tribunal was being set up with the idea that it would be possible for information to be withheld from the public which the public ought to have. I am sure it is the last thing in the minds of the right hon. Gentlemen that there should be any such suspicion in the minds of the public, and I will go further and say that I do not think


there could be any such suspicion if the nature of the tribunal and its powers were fully understood, because under the Act this tribunal could only sit in secret under certain conditions, and one of those conditions is that the secrecy must be in the public interest.
Surely no one can conceive that the tribunal would suggest that it was in the public interest that there should be any sheltering of any guilty party in this matter. I only want to add that such a course would be absolutely contrary to the desire and intentions of the Government, and I am myself quite satisfied that there will be no withholding from the public of any evidence which the public ought to hear. The power to sit in private is not confined to this particular tribunal, but is a power possessed by the Courts of Law, though it is only resorted to by the Courts of Law on the rarest possible occasions; and since the tribunal is to be presided over by a High Court Judge well acquainted with the practice of the Courts in this matter I am quite certain that the House need have no anxiety whatever on that point.

4.28 p.m.

Mr. ATTLEE: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has now moved for a tribunal of inquiry into the alleged Budget leakages. The first point to notice is that it is a fortnight since these occurrences, a fortnight during which this House and the City and the Press have been full of rumours. Everybody knows that those rumours have been floating about. I think it is a pity that the Chancellor and the Government did not resolve to make this inquiry at once. I do not think it is fair to the people concerned that this matter should have been allowed to go on so long. I now gather from the Chancellor that at his first meeting with the Chairman of Lloyds there was matter for suspicion. I do not think that further inquiry should have been left to a committee of Lloyds, who, after all, had no powers whatever, and who were concerned, quite naturally from their point of view, with the question of the losses inflicted on their members. The essential thing which we have to deal with here is the fact that somehow or other there has been a leakage, and a leakage which must have come from a very narrow circle of very highly-placed persons. We all know that

Budget secrets are jealously guarded, and that they are confined to a small circle of high officials and to members of the Cabinet. The space of time during which those persons are in possession of these secrets is generally very short. I do not know, but I have been given to understand that the Cabinet, contrary to usage, were informed of the proposals in the Budget before the Easter vacation, and, therefore, there was a much larger period than usual in which leakage might have occurred. Why has there been this departure from precedent? The fact remains now that a. fortnight has gone by with these inconclusive inquiries, and meanwhile, of course, the trail has been thoroughly confused. When a matter of this kind arises, there should be inquiry at the earliest possible moment.
The next point that arises is, What is the best method for dealing with a matter of this kind? Are the Government proposing the appropriate machinery? There, I think, the Chancellor might have told us something more as to why he has chosen this particular tribunal, consisting of a judge and two barristers. After all, we have a great deal of precedent for inquiries of this kind, not, I am glad to say, into Budget leakages. Indeed, leakages of Government information are comparatively rare, though we have had an unusual number during the tenure of this present Government—about one every two months—but, broadly speaking, leakages are extremely rare, and Budget leakages are still rarer. There is, however, abundance of precedents for inquiries of one kind and another.
The first thing that I would say to the right hon. Gentleman is that this is a House of Commons matter. Members of this House may be involved, and this House, after all, is the High Court of Parliament, yet the Chancellor says that this House is unfit to act as a court because of partiality. I do not know when the right hon. Gentleman came to that conclusion. I think it was since the occasion of the Campbell case, in which the right hon. Gentleman and his friends pressed that there should be a Select Committee. It is certainly since the Marconi inquiry, in which again the Conservative party at that time were quite convinced that the House of Commons was the right tribunal to look after a matter which might well involve the honour of its Members, and this is a


matter, after all, between the House and the Executive. The Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke in a very detached way, as if something had happened quite apart from the Government, but the Government are responsible. If the leakage should have come through a civil servant, the Government are responsible for the Civil Service; if it has come through a Minister, they are obviously responsible for that Minister; and I think it is without precedent for the Government to come to the House and say, "We suggest that this is the right way of dealing with the matter." They might have sought the opinion of the House. That has been done on several occasions. This House is rightly jealous of the Executive and should keep complete control over it.
When one comes to consider what is the subject matter before us, this is not a matter of dealing with legal rights, it is not a matter that requires special, high, legal qualifications; it is a matter of fact which we are inquiring into. In the Savidge case there was a question of legal procedure involved, but this is a matter concerned, not with law, but with the Administration. In the matter which we are considering, any tribunal has to consider how it is that there has been a serious leakage in a matter of first-class importance, and the question as to the use made of the leakage is another matter. The essential thing we are on is to discover whether there has been a leakage and, if so, where it has come from. It is generally held pretty widely, that there has been a leakage. That has yet to be proved, but there were sufficient rumours running right round the country, a rumour expressing itself in the Press, rumours, I am told, that have even found their way into music-hall jokes. It made it extremely undesirable that there should be any delay, and it made a prima facie case for inquiry by this House, not by a committee of Lloyd's, not, I think, by a judge, but by this House.
Then the next point that I come to—and here the right hon. Gentleman has given us no information—is as to what is to be the method of procedure by this tribunal. The essential method of procedure by a tribunal is where there is a judge, where a case is investigated, and that case is put before him by counsel. Who is going to investigate this case? In other matters where this method has

been used there have always been parties to the inquiry, the parties on one side interested in bringing out the facts and on the other side in refuting them, but here we have an inquiry as to whether something has happened, and there is no one responsible as far as we know. I do not know that there is anyone who is entitled to appear by counsel, unless the Government have anybody. We do not know, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman, What is going to be the method of procedure by this judge and these two eminent barristers? How are they going to get at the facts? What counsel will lay the facts before them? Who are instructing the counsel? Will the Attorney-General be conducting this case? It might be extremely awkward if so, and, as a matter of fact, there was some lapse due to one of his colleagues.
I do not think the Government seem to appreciate that the Government are in the dock in this matter. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to say, "We cannot have an inquiry by the House of Commons because there is partiality." Anyone might say that. A person brought before a court of law might say, "I am afraid they will not be quite impartial between me and the Crown." It is all nonsense. This House is concerned for the honour of this House, and I consider that the right hon. Gentleman would have done far better to have proposed an inquiry by this House. I say that in a matter like this, where everybody knows there is suspicion floating around, you must have swift action, you must have action taken in the light of day, ane you must take the greatest possible steps to clear up the whole matter. I think this is a matter which should have been placed in the hands of the Director of Public Prosecutions, who has the necessary machinery to make all the inquiries. The longer a matter of this kind is allowed to run on the easier it is for traces to be hidden, and I consider that the Government in this matter have deliberately flouted the honour of this House.
The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer went so far as to say that you could not trust the House or a Committee of this House to be impartial. Well, a great deal of the work of this House is done by Committees which act in an impartial spirit. Does


he say the same with regard to our Private Bill legislation? You put Members up there to hear parties and decide questions. Are they not to be trusted because of their partiality? We have matters that pass now and again before the Committee of Privileges, which they have to investigate. Their Members are drawn from one party and the other. Are they not all impartial? I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer again, When has occurred this change of view on the part of the Government?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman talked of a Royal Commission in the first place. When has he changed his view?

Mr. ATTLEE: The right hon. Gentleman is always a master of the cheap point. He gets away with this House because generally he winds up a discussion when there is no one to reply to him. He knows perfectly well that I was not using a term of art at the time; I was asking for a full inquiry, and if the right hon. Gentleman had wanted to know what the view of the Opposition was, he might have come and asked. It would have been done, I think, by anybody else. I think those who have any experience of this House know that in a matter involving the honour of this House the usual thing would have been for the Government to have consulted with the leaders of the different parties in the House and the other Members, the old Members, to consider what was the best course. The right hon. Gentleman has not chosen to do that. He has chosen to ride off on a mere verbal point. As a matter of fact, in past times the Conservative Government have stood up very strongly on this very point, that this is a matter concerning this House and that it should be placed before a Select Committee of this House, and I ask why they have changed. I am well aware that the Lord President of the Council opposed the setting up of this kind of inquiry in the Campbell case. Do I understand that the Lord President has converted all the Members of the opposite side since he went over? If so, then so much the worse for them. If the right hon. Gentleman can suggest another reason—we will wait to hear it—as to why a method which has been found good enough for the Conservative party in

opposition time and again is not good enough now, we shall be glad to hear it.

4.43 p.m.

Sir FRANCIS ACLAND: We are very glad that this matter is to be investigated, for it is one with which we have been very considerably concerned. We are very jealous of the honour of all parties in the House, and of the Government, and of public officials, who have to be entrusted with secrets sometimes, and who, one would have thought, can be safely trusted with those secrets as an absolute rule. When something occurs which brings suspicion either on Members of the House, or on the Government, or on the public service, it is undoubtedly something which ought to be very thoroughly investigated and the truth established. I think we shall be in a better position to judge some of the matters which have been raised by the Leader of the Opposition when we get the result of the inquiry. For instance, as to whether inquiry has been unduly delayed, and whether the date at which the contents of the Budget were stated to the Cabinet was unduly early. Until then we shall not know whether a leakage occurred owing to that.
To us it seems that the proposed inquiry ought to rest on five principles, namely, speed of getting to work, freedom from any sort of partiality, certainty that every material matter will be thoroughly and skilfully investigated, the greatest possible amount of publicity, and, lastly, absence of any opportunity for anyone to make political capital out of the conduct of the investigation. As to speed, impartiality, thoroughness, and publicity, procedure by a Commission such as is proposed will be quite as satisfactory, it seems to us, as procedure by a Select Committee. There are several High Court judges who have not been Members of this House, who would do the work admirably, and whose preference, apart from what is laid down in the Statute, will all be in favour of publicity, whenever publicity can be properly maintained. For the last reason which I gave, I think that procedure by a judicial committee will be better than procedure by a Select Committee, which has been suggested from above the Gangway. It is a very serious matter and the further it can be separated from the possibility of any Member of the House


coming into the limelight as a party to the inquiry, the better it will be for everybody concerned.
If the Government, as the Leader of the Opposition said, are in the dock, is it not better that they should be tried by a judge, who is accustomed to trying people who are in the dock? It will be possibles for the judge, assisted by eminent counsel, to consider the whole procedure and decide upon the best course to take at the inquiry. With regard to the Amendment that is to be moved, to bring in the Director of Public Prosecutions, I know very little about the law but, surely, that officer acts only on information given to him by persons such as the chief officer of the police district or other proper persons, and only in regard to alleged indictable offences. Surely, no less appropriate person could have been suggested to conduct a sort of all-round fishing inquiry for the information of the tribunal. If the judge wishes any help from the Director of Public Prosecutions or anybody else he will be quite capable of asking for it and getting it. The Director of Public Prosecutions is not the officer concerned with investigating matters of this sort, as if it was a matter for the Criminal Investigation Department. For these reasons, we shall support the Motion and not the Amendment.

4.49 p.m.

Earl WINTERTON: The Leader of the Opposition is regarded generally as a fair-minded man, but I think that he has been less than fair to the Government and to the House in the statement that he has made. Therefore, I propose to make some criticism of what he has said. But before I do so, may I say that his speech illustrates a fact which is known to those of us who have been for many years Members of this House, that an incident, or an alleged incident of this kind produces a perfect miasmic swamp of rumours and suspicions, and the mere fact that it does so makes it the more necessary that this matter should be considered by a judicial and impartial tribunal? I hope that if there be an incident it will be cleared up as soon as possible. It would be an ill service to the House of Commons if we were to return to the atmosphere of political and personal animosity and acerbity which

disgraced this House in the three or four years before the outbreak of the War. One of the most pleasant things to those of us who are elder Members of the House is—and it is a tribute to hon. and right hon. Members opposite and also to the Prime Minister and hon. and right hon. Members on this side—that to-day the feeling between the two sides of the House is infinitely better than in the past. An incident of this kind, if allowed to drift, undealt with, might easily lead to all sorts of accusations being hurled across the Floor of the House. None of us wants to return to that sort of thing. Compared with what happened before the War, from 1911 onwards, even the most controversial debate in the House to-day is like a pleasant Sunday afternoon, with the Prime Minister in the role of the dear vicar.
I must make some comment on the speech of the Leader of the Opposition. He seemed to waver between two views. He spoke in one portion of his speech of a leak, and in another he said that no leakage was proved, but he complained of delay. Surely, the common-sense view is that, at the outset at any rate, there was no prima facie case for investigation by any body other than Lloyds, who were immediately affected, and it would have been impossible to find out whether there was a prima facie case proved until the expert body immediately concerned had had its investigation. I do not think that there is much in the right hon. Gentleman's point—I am sure it was made perfectly genuinely—that if there be a culprit he has covered up his tracks. I do not think that is so. I think the result of Lloyds investigation will be a considerable benefit, to the judicial tribunal that is to be set up. As the right hon. Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland) pointed out, if it be indeed true that the Government are in the dock—a pretty strong term for the Leader of the Opposition to use in connection with a case which has not yet even been proved—then there is even more reason for not having sitting on them their normal political opponents or their supporters.
Let me here interpolate a remark, which may not be received with favour in all parts of the House—that a good many of us at that time heard with a sense of distaste and almost disgust,


which I have never experienced before in the whole of my political career, the discussions which took place on the report of the Select Committee on the Marconi Inquiry. What were the charges made from one side of the House to the other? The opponents of the Government said that the supporters of the Government on the Committee had deliberately tried to shield those in high places, and equally supporters of the Government accused those sitting on our side of the House who were on the Committee of having deliberately exaggerated the case in order to try to bring a charge which could not be proved. Exactly the same thing would happen in a matter of this kind if it were found that in the slightest degree, by implication or in any other way, any Member of the Government were concerned.
Finally, the right hon. Gentleman opposite said that we had deliberately flouted the honour of this House and had suggested that the House was not to be trusted in a question of this kind. It is not a question whether the House is to be trusted but a question of which is the most convenient and the most appropriate tribunal, and I should think that the proper tribunal always in cases of this kind is a judicial tribunal. It cannot be expected that Members of the House have the exact knowledge in cases of this kind which is possessed by a High Court judge. There is every reason to believe that if this tribunal is properly conducted, as it will be conducted by the eminent, member of the judicial bench who will preside over it, it will be discovered whether, first, there has been any leakage; a fact which has not yet been proved. It is assumed that there has been a leakage and that there is a prima facie case, but the law of coincidence is a very curious one and there may have been no leakage.
Secondly, the inquiry will prove, if there has been a leakage, to whom it is due, and if it is proved that any particular person or persons who has or have been guilty of a leakage occupy official positions, then, quite obviously, the opinion of the House and the country will demand that they be treated, as they should be treated, under the Official Secrets Act with the utmost rigours of the law. If, on the other hand, it be found that there has been no leakage

of information and therefore as a result there has been no improper disclosure of information, I hope that the Public Prosecutor will consider taking action in the case of those persons who have been spreading rumours about more than one person in high positions throughout the City and in the House. If no one is proved guilty, then the statements that have been made are undoubtedly of a criminally libellous character. I hope we shall have the fullest investigation, and I support what I believe to be the only appropriate tribunal for the purpose.

4.55 p.m.

Sir ASSHETON POWNALL: It was my very unpleasant duty to raise this question in the Budget discussions last Thursday week. May I say that I thoroughly and heartily welcome the action which has been taken by the Government with regard to setting up the inquiry? I had a very short time in which to make my inquiries and I thought, to use a phrase which has been used this afternoon, that there was a prima facie case to bé raised in the House of Commons. The Chancellor of the Exchequer now thinks that there is a prima facie case for an inquiry. From what I have heard on Lloyds I am sure that they welcome most heartily the form of the proposed inquiry. It has been suggested by the Leader of the Opposition that there should be an inquiry by a Select Committee. I was not a Member of the House at the time of the Marconi Inquiry, but the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) was. There are only 30 Members of the present House of Commons who were in the House at the time of the Marconi case, in 1912. At that time I happened to be actively interested in political affairs and was a Parliamentary candidate, and I remember very well outside the House of Commons the most unfortunate effect that that inquiry caused. Charges were bandied about in regard to the Chairman of the Commituee and the Members of the Committee, and those of us who are old enough to remember those things do not want that sort of thing to take place again in our Parliamentary life. If the facts are investigated and fully gone into, that is all for which we can ask.
There was a time many years ago when political petitions in regard to the unseating of Members of the House of Commons


were discussed and decided by the Members of the House, but it was found better that they should be treated judicially, and I suggest that that analogy applies in the present case. This is clearly a case for a High Court judge, preferably one who has never had any political predilections, so far as are known. So far as Lloyds are concerned, opinion there cordially welcomes the proposed inquiry and the form it is to take. It is usual when a Member has raised a question in which he may have personal interest, for him to make a public disclosure, and I take that opportunity of doing so. This risk was offered to the syndicate in which I have an interest on Monday, when the rate was 10 guineas per cent., and was also offered on the Tuesday morning, when the rate was 40 guineas per cent. I am glad to say that it was not accepted.

4.59 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: In this matter I am in agreement with the Leader of the Opposition. I listened with some surprise to the comments of the right hon. Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland) and the Noble Lord opposite. Both of them seemed to think that Lloyds are a body which possesses the necessary qualifications for making an investigation. When this case was brought to their notice, why was the Public Prosecutor not notified? If it is proved that there has been a leakage, that is a criminal matter, and in criminal matters it is not customary to send for Lloyds or a committee but for the Public Prosecutor, in order that the proper people shall make the inquiry immediately. I admit that I may be unduly suspicious, but I do not believe that judges are so much better than Members of the House of Commons. It is said that judges are not political people, but they have political appointments. Every judge was appointed by political people and many of them have taken active part in politics. The Lord Chief Justice was placed in his position because he was an active politician. Every one of them was appointed by the Chief Law Officer of the Crown of the political party in power for the time being.
What guarantee have we that judges will be more impartial than Members of the House of Commons? I cannot follow hon. Members who think so little of their colleagues and so much of the

judges. The average Member of the House of Commons is quite as capable of performing his duties upon a committee with credit to himself, impartiality and honour, as any other member of the community. I have had only one experience of this kind and it was in Glasgow, when an inquiry was set up. At the end of the day those who were interested in the matter were not satisfied because of the form which the inquiry had taken. Somebody has to state a case. I do not know whether I should say this or not, but if the person likely to be responsible for the leakage is a highly-placed civil servant, or a Member of the Cabinet, may I ask who is to make out the case that there was a leakage? Who will produce the evidence that on such and such a date Stock Exchange transactions took place? Who is to prove the case? In any other case somebody says: "We have made inquiries, and we propose to try to prove our case to the judge," but in this inquiry there can be nothing of that kind There will be three judges sitting on a bench. Who is to give evidence that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for instance, gave Budget information to his colleagues upon a certain day? Who is to produce evidence that the rates rose from so much per cent. to a much higher percentage? Nobody. Rumour has been running round the House of Commons and circulating in the country that somebody made money on the Stock Exchange through a leakage in the Cabinet. That is what the judges have to discuss. What is the evidence? There is nobody who can say a single thing.
On the question of publicity, I am not so sure as the Chancellor is that the judges will consider everything in public. We must remember that the Labour party are the great Opposition party in this country. With one exception, no judge, so far as I know, belongs to that party. Every judge is associated with Liberal or Tory polities. It is said that this is not a party mattes; of course it is a party matter. It may become a party matter upon which an election may have to be settled. The public have some rights in the matter. Have hon. Members above the Gangway no rights in the matter at all? Have they no right to say: "This is a man in whom we have absolute confidence to carry out the work and to see that it is done properly"?


The judges carry no confidence at all in wide circles outside. I have the feeling that they are proposed not so much to pull out the facts as to cover them up with legal jargon.
I cannot see an answer to the observation of the Leader of the Opposition that any other party in Opposition would have been consulted about the form which the inquiry was to take. This is not solely a Government matter, it is a matter for the whole House of Commons. The Chancellor of the Exchequer should consult the Opposition up to a point, and the House of Commons as well, as to who the judges are to be and as to the terms of the remit. This is not a good start. An inquiry is to be made into secrets and problems which are vital matters, and already a large section of the House of Commons has not complete confidence in the committee of inquiry. It is a tremendous pity, and it would have been better if the Chancellor had taken the course of consulting those who hold an opposition position in the House in this matter. The subject has been approached from a wrong angle.

5.9 p.m.

Mr. DENMAN: It is clear that the area of common agreement in the House this afternoon is very much larger than the area of difference. I am sorry that on points about which we differ a certain amount of heat has been displayed. In the matter of common agreement, we all want an inquiry that will effectively discover and make public the facts. As to the tribunal, I confess that my sympathies are with the Opposition rather than with the Government. I regret that the House of Commons has not been used and asked to perform the function that would formerly have been regarded as a normal part of its duty. After all, we are the High Court of Parliament, and we have semi-judicial functions. I do not like the thought that our duties in that respect are likely to be discarded because we have neglected opportunities to perform them. It is like a weapon put upon a wall and never used again; it grows rusty.
We are entrusted with the functions of High Court of Parliament, and this, I submit, is an occasion on which we should have used them. Not only for theoretical reasons but for practical ones, I do not feel at all convinced that the judicial

tribunal will be as effective as a select committee would be. It is true that the Marconi Committee was a disastrous precedent in some respects. Like the Noble Lord, I remember the controversies that were aroused by it, and they were not pleasant in the result, and not creditable to the House or to the Parliamentary feelings of those times. Then, as the Noble Lord observed, party feelings were extremely heated, but in these days a select committee would, I believe, work effectively without such disturbing partisanship.
On purely practical grounds, I see that a judicial committee might find grave difficulty in discovering the facts. I believe that I am senior member of Lloyd's in this House. I certainly have recollections, over 30 years ago, of underwriting this kind of business. I know the technique of it. I assure the House that, so far as Lloyd's are concerned, any form of inquiry will be effective, because Lloyd's would most certainly realise to the full their public obligations and would give every assistance in discovering the truth. The difficulty will not begin at Lloyd's. It will begin after you have got what information Lloyd's can give and you are up against the screen or series of screens that then lie between you and the truth. It may well be that serious difficulty will then be found in reaching the malefactor, assuming that there is a malefactor. The screens may, for example, be almost inpenetrable until it is made quite plain that certain policies will not have claims paid upon them. I can conceive a situation in which the High Court of Parliament, with its very varied range of powers and its supreme authority, could act with a decision for which a mere judicial tribunal would not have adequate powers.
For those very practical reasons I should have preferred a Select Committee, but the difference is relatively small. I have hopes that the tribunal which the Government propose will reveal the facts and, sharing the common hope that truth will prevail and facts will be revealed, I do not desire to resist the proposal.

5.14 p.m.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Simon): I agree with the hon. Member who said that the House of Commons


was merely deciding what was the more appropriate instrument, but from the practical point of view referred to by the hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman), the Government recommend to the House that the procedure should be adopted which was sketched out by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I want to remind the House of one result which would follow the procedure by way of Select Committee. I have no doubt that all of us would do our duty upon the Committee, but political feelings are strong, especially if it is the case, as was suggested by the Leader of the Opposition, that the Government are in the dock, or if, as was suggested by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), we may be dealing with a, matter on which the next General Election may turn. I acknowledge the extreme impartiality and detachment of spirit of everybody on all sides, but I think that, if these are the prospects, we have to consider how the Select Committee would be composed.
According to all convention, it would be constituted with a Government majority. Out of, perhaps, 21 members, it would contain 13 or 14 avowed supporters of the Government. No doubt there would be a Member or two from my hon. Friends below the Gangway, for whom the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland) spoke just now, and, as I thought, spoke very good sense. The result would be that you would not have a body which, so far as its antecedents were concerned, would approach this question—which we are told is a question in which Government credit is concerned, and in which, possibly, electoral interests may be involved—you would not have a body constituted of carefully chosen people who have nothing to do with the matter; it would be a body which, before it began, had been constituted on a particular basis with a Government majority.
I am one of the very few Members of this House, like my Noble Friend the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), whose Parliamentary memories go back to the Marconi days. No one can have gone through that business—I was Solicitor-General at the time—without being utterly sick of the way in which things developed, whatever one's views

may have been; but who will deny that there were very honourable gentlemen serving on that committee? I do not deny it at all. I cannot believe, if I may take the test of my hon. Friend the Member for Central Leeds, that as a practical matter the best way in which to create a tribunal which may be trusted to act with complete aloofness from all political considerations, is to constitute a Select Committee. I say that without any sort of reflection against the good faith of anyone; but all of us here are politicians, and, except for that curious kind of politician who takes a special pleasure in always fouling the nest of his own side, there is a tendency—hon. Gentlemen opposite would not be the candid men they are if they did not admit it—to champion the point of view which, if it turns out ultimately to succeed, will, as a matter of fact, justify the faith that is in us.
I do not for a moment suggest that the Leader of the Opposition is not approaching this matter with the desire that we all have, that it should be properly handled, but I am entitled to remind him that even at this stage he was guilty just now of the observation, "There has been leakage." He made that observation with emphasis, and it was cheered by hon. Members behind him. What sort of judicial body is going to be appointed to investigate whether there has or has not been a leakage, when some of us are already making a declaration of that kind? While that is so, I quite agree that there are one or two very fair points of debate which may be raised as regards the tribunal suggested. The hon. Member below the Gangway put it very fairly when he said, quite truly, that, after all, we want to have this thing well done, that the material has got to be collected and presented in some orderly way. You cannot have a body that is going about in a vague sort of way, on the chance or in the hope that it will hit the right point. But may I point out that as a matter of fact that arrangement has got to be made whether you have a Select Committee or not? There is no public prosecutor who would appear before the Select Committee and say to them, "Allow me to explain the case to you." You have to find a suitable machinery for doing this in either case.
There is this to be said about a tribunal presided over by a High Court


judge with two perfectly impartial, well-trained colleagues, that they are themselves, from their experience, all extremely familiar with the way in which an orderly inquiry is conducted. I do not expect that there are many Members of the present House of Commons who could pass an examination on the actual machinery of Lloyd's underwriting. My hon. Friend below the Gangway could, because he is a member of Lloyd's; my hon. Friend the Member for East Lewisham (Sir A. Pownall) could, because he also is a member of Lloyd's; and two or three of us who have from time to time practised in the Commercial Court may claim to know a little about it. But I have no doubt that, if you want to have someone presiding over this inquiry who really is able competently to conduct and control the whole thing from that point of view, you could not possibly make a better choice than a High Court judge. It really is not the case that there are not plenty of High Court judges who are not only, as I believe all judges to be, perfectly impartial, but who have actually no connection, past, present or future, with any conceivable political association.
Reference was made to the Director of Public Prosecutions, and he is also referred to in the Amendment which the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) has on the Paper. He may or may not move that Amendment later; I cannot anticipate; but I would make this observation, as an old Attorney-General who has dealt with these matters at close quarters, that the Director of Public Prosecutions is an official whose work begins when a primâ facie case has been established against some named person; and there are other officials of the administration—people connected with Scotland Yard and others of that sort—who in practice have to carry out various kinds of inquiries; but the Director of Public Prosecutions acts under the instructions of the Attorney-General—he has no independent or automatic power. I have not the slightest doubt—indeed, I know—that, in order that the whole case may be most rapidly presented and examined in an orderly and effective way, my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General is already preparing himself, with the assistance of all the proper Departments, in order that he may give his assistance to the Tribunal as soon as ever it is constituted.
I imagine, judging from previous cases, that what will happen will be that the presiding judge will have complete authority to indicate this, that or the other direction in which he desires further information, and the whole machinery of the State will be at his disposal for the purpose. There is no reason at all why other interests should not apply to be represented before him and assist in. any way that they like. I venture to suggest that the matter will proceed in this way much more rapidly than is likely if the proposal were adopted of an inquiry by some 21 Members of the House of Commons. Therefore, I think that in all the circumstances the House will see that as a practical matter this is really the better machinery, and the Government have no other object in view at all except to choose the best machinery. Had we not better adopt this well-established machinery, provided for by the Statute Book itself, and get the facts through it without further delay?

Mr. G. HARDIE: To-day we heard from the Chancellor of the Exchequer a statement that nothing would have been known about this business had he not received a letter from Lloyd's. We have since heard a great deal of talk about how the procedure is to take place, and where you are going to get the first grip. Might I ask whether the first procedure is to be, or whether there is any other procedure, to summon the individuals that Lloyd's represented as having been, or as being likely to be, in possession of information of some kind that led them to become suspicious of certain transactions?

Sir J. SIMON: The hon. Member will, of course, appreciate that we must none of us anticipate the discretion which will rightly rest on the presiding judge, but I do not see that I can do any injury if I state what is quite plainly the commonsense point of view, and my own understanding of the matter. In the first place, I should conceive that the proceedings would probably begin—I should trust almost immediately—by the tribunal having before it, with, of course, actual witnesses for them to examine, all the material so far ascertained by the Chairman of Lloyd's. That might lead to further inquiries, and the whole machinery of the law will be available to make them


effective. The Government, through the Attorney-General, will place the whole machinery of the law at the service of the tribunal, and will themselves forward the investigation of the truth in every way that they can. I cannot see that there is any better way. If that be so, I would ask the House to adopt this Resolution, and put in the hands of three impartial persons the business of finding out the facts, whatever they may be.

5.27 p.m.

Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: I beg to move, in line 6, at the end, to add:
and it is expedient that the Director of Public Prosecutions should forthwith make all inquiries and investigations for the purpose of laying all material evidence before the said tribunal.
I think the speech of the Home Secretary illustrates the extreme misfortune that in this case the Opposition were not consulted in the usual way with regard to the procedure that should be adopted in a matter which does not touch parties, but touches the House of Commons. Hitherto it has always been the practice, I understand, in matters of this kind, to take the leaders of all parties into consultation, to make to them the sort of explanation that the right hon. Gentleman has just made, and then in consultation with them, to decide upon what is considered to be the most appropriate course. Unfortunately, the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not see fit to do that in this case. I think that that is most unfortunate, and I am sure that now he regrets that he did not take these steps to consult the appropriate parties in the House of Commons at an earlier time, and that therefore it is necessary for us to discuss in the House all the merits of these various methods which might have been discussed with much fuller information, such as the right hon. Gentleman has given to us, with regard to what the Attorney-General is doing, what Government Departments are doing, and so on. Those matters might have been discussed with much fuller knowledge outside the House, and some arrangement come to.
As the matter is, it seems to me to be very unfortunate that the House of Commons should be regarded by the Government as a body which is incompetent and unsuitable to carry through the inquiry

into this matter. Everyone knows that Members of the House of Commons are just as much human beings as judges, or eminent lawyers, or anyone else; they all have their biases and their predilections; but I should have thought that a Select Committee of this House would be just the type of jury that should try this case. It is not a case primarily to be tried by the expert; it is a case to be tried by a jury; and I should have thought that, in a matter which touches the honour, perhaps, and the competence of Members of the House of Commons, the jury of a Select Committee would be the right body, as it has always been considered hitherto to be the right body, to deal with such a question.
It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to say what a marvellous thing it is to get this complete impartiality from a judge and two members of the legal profession. I have had many discussions with many eminent members of the legal profession at the bench of my inn on many political matters and I have never found that they are less political than I am. I do not know which of these paragons of impartiality is to be chosen. That will be a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But I shall be extremely surprised if he can find one as to whose political opinions I cannot give him a very fair idea. If this is to be judged by political impartiality, there is really no better case for this committee of three than there is for a Select Committee of the House. There is a worse case because in a Select Committee of the House you get all political opinions represented. That is a certainty. They may be violent, they may be strong, but they will all be there, whereas in this committee of three there is no guarantee that you will get any representation of any except one political opinion.
Therefore, if one is going to judge this thing, as I should have thought was undesirable, on the basis of political impartiality, let us be quite frank in the knowledge that whatever body you get will have its subconscious political bias, and it is better to see that there is a political bias of every sort of kind and colour. That, I should have thought, was a very strong argument and it is, no doubt, the argument that has weighed in the minds of many statesmen and Gov-


ernments in the past when they have set up Select Committees and when, as the late Lord Oxford did, they pressed for Select Committees in matters like the Campbell affair. They realised that, though there may be disadvantages, there are also strong countervailing advantages.
The question that is raised by the Amendment is one with which the right hon. Gentleman has already dealt with to some extent and it may be that, if the explanation that he has given had been given to the Leaders of the Opposition at an earlier time, it might have been unnecessary to put the Amendment on the Paper. But the necessity arises for this reason, really the very reason that the right hon. Gentleman has so emphasised in his speech: The two people who are going to be in control of these proceedings henceforth are these three Olympically impartial persons. It is essential that, if they are to be impartial, they should not meddle in any way with the preparation of the case. They should investigate the matters that are put before them, but they must not follow through what may be only vague suspicions, and yet, as the right hon. Gentleman knows better than I do, it is these vague suspicions in the first instance which lead you to the quarry at the end. What I want to ask the Government is, Who is going to perform that function?
Let us realise the sort of matter that is being inquired into. First of all, of course, a prima facie case has to be made out—and the Chancellor is satisfied that that has been done—that there has been a leakage. That prima facie case for a leakage is being referred to this tribunal. Whether or not there is a leakage will, of course, depend on the volume of the business that has been done. You cannot get anything except circumstantial evidence of the leakage until you have found the person who has leaked and, therefore, the first part of your inquiry will be entirely one of circumstantial evidence. Let us assume that the tribunal comes to the conclusion that the case that satisfies the Chancellor satisfies them, because there will be no opposition to the prima facie case. There will be no one to protest against it being a prima facie case because there is no defendant. At that

period presumably they would be satisfied that there is a prima facie case.
What does the investigation involve? A number of transactions have been done by Lloyd's and the Stock Exchange in tea shares, transactions which tend to show that someone has information. It is easy enough to get from Lloyd's the transactions. It is easy enough to get from Lloyd's the nominees who put the transactions through. It is easy enough to get from the stockbrokers and jobbers, if one can discover who they were, the names of the various firms with whom they dealt. Once you get to that point you get into an almost impenetrable difficulty unless you have means of carrying through a really skilled investigation in criminal matters, because one thing is certain. If there has been a leakage it has been very carefully concealed. No one is going to give away a matter of this sort, if they are going to give it away, and not arrange a number of defences for themselves so that they shall not be discovered. Therefore, one can immediately premise that this matter will have passed through a great number of hands before you get back, if you ever get back, to the origin of the story.
How is that investigation to be carried out? I have put down in this Amendment that the matter should be referred to the Director to carry through that investigation, but I am prepared to alter it to anyone else who is a suitable person. But it seems to me that it is going to be impossible for the tribunal itself to meddle in that investigation. It would at once be deprived, or would be suspected of being deprived, of impartiality if it followed up a clue which looked as if it led in a certain direction. It would have the appearance of following a certain quarry, perhaps because someone might suggest that there was some reason quite other than the evidence why that quarry should be followed. It is perhaps a little awkward for the Attorney-General to be the person in charge of this investigation, because the Government is in the dock. The leakage can only have been from a member of the Government or a very high member of the Civil Service, for both of whom they are responsible. I thought myself it would be better to put someone who is quite impartial and, although technically under the Attorney-General, conducts his


business quite apart from the Attorney-General, someone who is accustomed to investigating matters of this sort and, although it is true that the Director of Public Prosecutions generally gets the case when it is any way strongly suspected that an individual has committed a crime, everyone knows that he has very many means of making inquiries which no other individual has.

Sir J. SIMON: It is a mere matter of information. Inquiries of that sort at that stage are nearly always made from Scotland Yard.

Sir S. CRIPPS: The Director uses the Scotland Yard staff. He is the person who very often co-ordinates many inquiries. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree that there are many cases in which he has co-ordinated inquiries once suspicion has been fixed on an individual. Take the Ruxton case. It was not proved that Ruxton was guilty when the Director came in. It is true that the Lancashire police had done a good deal of inquiry but there was a good deal left to be done when the Director came into the case. It seems to me that someone of that kind is required if this tribunal is going to get the assistance that it needs in this case. I am not in the least concerned with who gives that assistance, provided we can be assured that the tribunal is not going to be left in this case, having followed the case through a certain distance, having got to what is apparently a blank wall—Mr. John Smith, who sent an order to William Jones, who sent an order to a broker—and then not be able to find out anything beyond Mr. John Smith which, maybe, can only be found out by detective methods and by the investigation of a great many banking accounts with which John Smith may eventually be linked up.
That is the class of inquiry that we are going to find ourselves embarked upon, this following of individuals through a long chain until you get back to the responsible individual. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to say that, if he does not accept my Amendment, he is prepared to see that some person is put in charge of these investigations, Scotland Yard or anyone else he likes, who has the power, the knowledge and the

authority to carry through this type of investigation, which, of course, cannot be done by the right hon. Gentleman's proposal but which can be done quite impartially, and simply put the matter in their hands and say, "Carry through the investigation and what you find bring to the tribunal." I think my hon. Friends would be satisfied if we got an assurance that some such scheme will be carried through in this case.

5.42 p.m.

The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir Donald Somervell): There is one statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman that I should like to correct at the outset, though I am not sure that he used it in the sense in which it might be understood. He said he understood that I was going to direct the investigation. That, of course, is not so. The investigation is and must be directed by the judge who presides over the tribunal. He is in charge of the proceedings and he has full power to say how the investigation shall be conducted.

Sir S. CRIPPS: What I understood was that the preliminary matters are being directed now by him in order that the relevant matters may be ready to lay before the tribunal.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: As I conceive it, the functions with which I am entrusted are, very shortly, to collect the information that is at present available, to be in a position to inform the tribunal of the nature of that information and what witnesses are available and, indeed, to collect as far as possible everything which in our opinion is relevant and proper to be put before the tribunal. The hon. and learned Gentleman went on to ask what might happen if certain conclusions seemed to be pointed at or a certain position arose. Speaking for myself, this seems to be one of those matters in which there are a large number of eventualities that may arise and which, when they arise, one must be ready to meet and deal with. We are perfectly prepared to say what our understanding would be, should the sort of circumstances that the hon. and learned Gentleman referred to arise. He said that you might get to a stage at which, in order to arrive at relevant truths, some detailed investigation of a criminal character had


to be undertaken. I can assure him that if that situation arises, investigation will be undertaken, and I ask the House to trust me to see that it will be undertaken.
With all respect, though I agree that it might be suggested superficially, there is no embarrassment about the matter. I am being entrusted with a certain function to investigate facts. When it has been developed it will become obvious in what direction relevant facts are or may be available. It is a matter of performing the sort of functions I have been used to performing. It is the following up of evidence and of seeing whether this, that or the other person should be called. If in the course of that process it is necessary to call upon the police authorities or upon any other instrument available to the Government, the House will trust me to call upon them, and that assistance will be brought in. As I see it my function at present is to be ready to put the tribunal in possession of such information as is at present available. We do not in the least know whether other parties will apply to be represented and whether the tribunal will wish to see them. One will have to see as the thing develops what the exact procedure and the appropriate time for that really are. I undertake these duties with the fullest intention of carrying out the intention of the Government expressed from this Box, and our only aim and desire is to see that this matter is sifted to the bottom.

Mr. EDE: I hope that the House will not pass from this matter as if it had now become a contest between learned counsel as to the proper method of procedure. If we do that, we shall lose sight of the fundamental issue which is involved. The serious thing about the matter is not that a few people may run the risk of losing a certain amount of money on Lloyd's—that is an entirely secondary matter—but that certain matters should have been communicated to anyone before they were communicated to this House or should appear to have been communicated by some responsible person before we heard of it. I join with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in feeling that the real seriousness of the matter is that it is one of a series of leakages that have taken place. It does not concern me very greatly whether this may have involved some financial loss in the nature

of gambling transactions or not. That is a very small part of the matter. It is regrettable that no Member of the Front Government Bench has thought fit to quote to us any precedent for this kind of tribunal being set up to discuss this matter. This House is very old and has grown very wise in the course of acquiring antiquity in the way in which it deals with the great public services. We are here really investigating an allegation.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: On a point of Order. Are we discussing the Amendment?

Mr. SPEAKER: Is the hon. Member soon coming to the Amendment?

Mr. EDE: I was in this difficulty, that I rose before my hon. and learned Friend spoke, but I was not called. I desire to discuss the main Question, and should like to know whether there will be an opportunity of doing so after the disposal of the Amendment.

Mr. SPEAKER: I shall put the main Question again after the disposal of the Amendment.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment in view of the statement which the hon. and learned Gentleman has made.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Main Question again proposed.

Mr. EDE: This House has grown very wise in dealing with such a matter, and in the course of the centuries it has had to deal with it in many forms, and there have been many occasions upon which this House has appointed a Committee of its own Members to conduct cases as tribunals. No one can forget the great lines of Macaulay in describing the trial of Warren Hastings and the fact that during the course of the trial the Committee that was appointed to commence it broke up and ended with very diverse views. I see the learned Attorney-General smiling. He may think that it is a very unfortunate precedent to quote, that any tribunal should take seven years to discuss this particular matter. I cannot help thinking that an inquiry into the leakage of Budget secrets would be likely to take less time than the inquiry into the whole Government of India in the 18th century.
I hope the House will say that in this matter the investigation should remain in


our hands and that the question is not, Did somebody lose something at Lloyd's but, How is it that this House, which through the centuries has established its position as the body to whom the great public services are responsible, has during the past few months, on more than one occasion, found, on reading in the Press and hearing in rumour, that there were matters of great public importance that should have been first communicated to it? It is a matter of some surprise to me that the first occasion on which it is suggested that there is the necessity for a tribunal is one on which some trifling financial loss, comparatively speaking, has been made in the matter. I regret very much that this House is being asked by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to set aside a position that it has managed to establish for itself during the centuries.

Mr. COCKS: The learned Attorney-General stated just now that it is the desire of the Government to probe this matter to the bottom. That being the case, I cannot understand why they have not adopted the usual practice in this House of appoining a Select Committee. I admit that a judicial tribunal of the kind which they suggest is competent to find out whether a leakage has occurred on the facts before them. Having got the first point of proving that a leakage has existed—I do not admit that myself until it is proved—another problem comes before us. If a leakage exists, you know that it comes from among a certain group of people. It either comes from certain people in the Treasury or from Members of the Cabinet itself. It is definitely the fact that out of 30, 40 or perhaps 50 people comes the source of leakage, and you have to find it out. Surely, a judicial tribunal is not the body to find out; it is a question rather for the police to find out who is innocent and who is guilty. Speaking with all responsibility as a Member of this House, and in defence of its position, I do not want to foul the nest in which I am at the moment existing, but it is no good disguising from ourselves the fact that all over this House a certain name has been mentioned.

Mr. SPEAKER: It is very improper to suggest anything of the kind.

Mr. COCKS: As far as I know, without the slightest evidence whatever, a certain name has been mentioned, and we all know it, and the honour of the House is involved. Surely the honour of the House should be in the keeping of the House. The ordinary way is for a Select Committee to investigate the matter and find out whether it is so or not. I would ask the Prime Minister, who has just come into the Chamber, whether he will not consider that matter. If accusations are made against Members of this honourable House we should be the judge of whether the accusations are true or not, and it should not be passed over to a judicial authority. That is all I have to say. I feel that a Select Committee would do justice as between every Member of this House, whether accused or not. They are the body to find out and to penetrate into the source of the leakage, if such a leakage, for which I say that there is no evidence at all up to now, took place.

Resolved,
That it is expedient that a tribunal be established for inquiring into a definite matter of urgent public importance, that is to say, whether, and, if so, in what circumstances and by what persons, any unauthorised disclosure was made of information relating to the Budget for the present year or any use made of any such information for the purposes of private gain.

Orders of the Day — CIVIL LIST.

Considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

5.58 p.m.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move,

Orders of the Day — I. CONSOLIDATED FUND.

That there be charged on the Consolidated Fund as from the demise of His late Majesty the following annual sums (subject to adjustment in respect of parts of a year):—
For the King's Civil List:
£410,000, subject, as respects the periods specified in the first column of the Table appended to this Resolution to the reductions specified in relation to those periods respectively in the second column of that Table;


For retired allowances:
Such sums as may be required for the payment of retired allowances granted, on a scale and in accordance with conditions approved from time to time by the Treasury, by his late Majesty or His present Majesty to or in respect of persons who have been members of the Household of His late Majesty or His Present Majesty;
For Civil List pensions:
Such sums as may be required for the payment in each year of Civil List pensions already granted or hereafter to be granted;
For His Royal Highness the Duke of York:
£25,000, so, however, that in respect of any period during which the Duchy of Cornwall is vested in His Majesty or any period during which the Duke of Cornwall for the time being is a minor, no payment shall be made unless the net revenues of the Duchy for the year fall short, as respects the first period, of £25,000, and as respects the second period, of £50,000, and in the event of such a deficiency the rate of the payment shall not exceed an amount per annum equal to the deficiency;
For the benefit of Her Royal Highness the Duchess of York and the children of Their Royal Highnesses the Duke and Duchess of York:
£25,000, to be payable only in the event of His Royal Highness the Duke of York predeceasing His Majesty and only in respect of any period during which one of the children of Their Royal Highnesses is the Heir Presumptive to the Throne.

In the event of His Majesty's marriage:—
For Her Majesty the Queen in the event of her surviving His Majesty:
£70,000;
For the benefit of the sons of His Majesty, other than the Duke of Cornwall for the time being:
£10,000 in respect of each son who attains the age of 21 years, and a further sum of £15,000 in respect of each son who marries;
For the benefit of the daughters of His Majesty:
£6,000 in respect of each daughter who attains the age of 21 years or marries;
and that provision be made for continuing for a period of six months after the close of the present reign certain payments charged as aforesaid upon the Consolidated Fund which would otherwise be then determined.
The sum payable under this Resolution for the King's Civil List in respect of the period before the beginning of the present financial year shall be in addition to the sum issued in that period for the King's Civil List under the Civil List Act, 1910.

for expenditure on works; and the sums payable under this Resolution for His Royal Highness the Duke of York shall be in addition to any sums payable to him under section five of the said Act.

TABLE.


Periods in respect of which reductions are to be made in the King's Civil List.
Rate of reductions per annum.


Any period during which His Majesty is unmarried.
£40,000


Any period in the life-time of His Royal Highness the Duke of York during which the Duchy of Cornwall is vested in His Majesty.
An amount equal to the net revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall for the year, less £25,000.


Any other period during which the Duchy of Cornwall is vested in His Majesty.
An amount equal to the net revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall for the year.

In moving the Resolutions connected with the Civil List, I understand that the customary procedure is that we have a general discussion upon the proposals of the Select Committee, and that afterwards we discuss the Resolutions separately and any Amendments which the Chairman may call upon the Resolutions. The Resolutions are designed to cover the recommendations of the Select Committee, whose report is in the hands of hon. Members and deals in considerable detail with the matters which we have to consider. The Committee will be glad to note from paragraph 3 of the report that the Select Committee have been afforded every facility for the acquisition of such information as they desired on any subject relevant to the matters under their consideration. In view of the detail in the report, I do not think that I need cover every point in it, and I shall confine myself to pointing out certain leading features of the report, and in particular those which are concerned with the changes which are proposed from the Civil List of 1910.
These changes are considerable, and they arise partly from the fact that His present Majesty is unmarried and partly from the fact that the Select Committee have taken the opportunity of trying to adjust certain anomalies which they found in the disposition of the Civil List. Perhaps the first thing the Committee will


like to consider is the net effect of these changes on the total amount of the Civil List, and they will find this set out very succinctly and clearly in paragraph 25 of the report, on page 12. They will see that whereas the Civil List of 1910 amounted to £470,000, the new Civil List only amounts to £410,000. That shows, apparently, a saving of £60,000, but part of that saving is more apparent than real, because it is due to certain transfers from the Civil List to the Exchequer and certain other transfers in the opposite direction, and if you take account of the transfers from and to the Civil List or to the Exchequer you will find that there is a true saving of £36,900 a, year, but that is only a minimum, because the actual present saving will amount to a great deal more than that sum.
First of all, owing to the fact that His Majesty is unmarried, no provision at present is required for Her Majesty the Queen as was made in the last Civil List, and although provision is made for such a contingency in the present List the amount which was formerly set aside for the benefit of Her Majesty the Queen, namely, £33,000 from the Privy Purse and another £7,000 from Class II making £40,000 in all, that amount will remain undrawn as long as His present Majesty remains unmarried. Arising also from the fact that His Majesty has no children, being unmarried, there is no Prince of Wales and, consequently, the revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall are for the time being vested in His Majesty. As long as that is the case His Majesty has expressed his desire that these revenues should be used in relief of State funds. That means that another £79,000 will be available, first to relieve the Civil List of a charge of £77,000 for His Majesty's Privy Purse, leaving another £2,000 which will be available for the relief of another class on the Civil List. The effect of the wishes of His Majesty that the revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall should be utilised in this way is so important in its effect upon the proposals of the Select Committee that I should like to deal with it in further detail later on, but I will at the moment deal with some minor changes which are recommended in the report.
Hon. Members will see that in paragraph 1 there is set out the various

classes on the Civil List as they existed during the late reign, and they will see that there are six different classes. Let me say a word about each class. In Class II are the salaries of His Majesty's Household and retired allowances and two changes have been proposed. The first change referred to in paragraph 15 on page 8 affects three officers of the Household. These officers are really political appointments, and as it is pointed out in the report the duties they have to perform are analogous to those of Junior Lords of the Treasury, and it really is an anomaly that the salaries of these three officers should be considered to form part of the Civil List.

Mr. MAXTON: Have they not duties at the Palace as well which ordinary Whips do not perform?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: They would be paid a salary merely if they were political officers, and the duties they perform at the Palace are not of such an onerous character that they are the main part of their duties. The Select Committee, therefore, propose that the salaries of these officers shall be transferred to the Parliamentary Vote. That does not necessarily mean that the salaries will remain at the figure at which they have hitherto stood; that will be a matter to be discussed on a Supplementary Estimate to be presented later. The second change is described in paragraph 16 and relates to the pensions awarded to the members of the Royal Household. The practice in the past has been that pensions were paid according to a scale, and although there have been instances where further payments for special reasons have been made over and above these scales, the extra has always been charged to His Majesty's Privy Purse. It is now proposed to alter the practice. Anything given over and above these scales will still be a debit against His Majesty's Privy Purse, but with regard to the main charge for pensions it will be seen from the report that it has been customary for pensions granted by previous Sovereigns to fall on the Consolidated Fund.
The Consolidated Fund has also been responsible for so much of the pensions granted by the reigning Sovereign to officers of the Household as is due to their service under the preceding reign, and the remainder of the pensions charges,


namely, the charge due to services during the existing reign, has been borne on Class II. That has not been altogether a convenient arrangement, because it has been necessary to provide in the Civil List for a liability the extent of which could not possibly be estimated at the beginning of the reign. There is no charge at the beginning of the reign, and the amount of the charge at the end must depend on the length of the reign. In the reign of His late Majesty a pension charge which began with nothing at all ended up with so large an amount as £16,000 a year. It is thought that it would be more convenient that the Consolidated Fund should take over the whole of the charge from the beginning. It is a charge which during the late reign averaged £7,000 a year, and that charge was allowed for by the Select Committee in a reduction in the Civil List by that amount. The actual charge on the Exchequer is not altered in any way; it is merely a question whether the amount should appear in the grant for the Civil List or on the Consolidated Fund. The Select Committee thought it would be better to transfer it to the Consolidated Fund.
Class III, which concerns the expenses of His Majesty's Household, is dealt with in paragraph 19. Hon. Members will see how the economies which were made by His late Majesty King George in the expenses of the Household owing to his careful administration have reduced the amount which was originally fixed in the Civil List at £193,000 to about £134,000 in a normal year. If hon. Members will look at the first account on page 15 they will see there set out how these figures came down. His present Majesty signified to the Select Committee his wish that the economies made by his father should, at any rate, for the moat part, go to the benefit of the Exchequer and not to his own benefit; and the Committee have expressed their appreciation of his action in that matter. The Committee felt that they did not wish the whole of the economies which were effected in the late reign to go to the benefit of the Exchequer, hut, nevertheless, they found themselves able to make a reduction here on account of these economies of £46,200 in the Civil List.
It is true that in this particular class we must set off against that the two

additional charges which are referred to in paragraph 18. It is now proposed that certain King's Plates run for in Ireland shall be transferred to the Civil List in order to mark the personal connection of His Majesty with these particular events. Also the practice in respect of telephone and telegraph charges in the Palace, it is proposed, should be assimilated to that which obtains in the Departments and that certain charges which have formerly been debited to the Departments should now fall on the Civil List. The result is to add £6,000 to the class with which I am dealing, and which shows an economy of £40,200. I am sure the Committee will appreciate the spirit in which His Majesty has approached the whole subject, that he did not wait for the Select Committee to make any suggestions but himself expressed his desire that economies made by his father should be allowed for in the new Civil List.
Class IV, which deals with works is to be abolished altogether. It deals with interior repairs at Palaces. The Office of Works represented to the Committee that as they already deal with outside repairs and decorations it really complicates their book-keeping if the cost of work inside, which is done by the same people and under the same responsibility, has to be kept separately from that of the work outside. The Committee has adopted that view and propose to transfer this charge of £20,000 from the Civil List to Civil Votes. Class V refers to Royal bounty, alms and special services, and will be unchanged; and Class VI, the un-appropriated class of £8,000, is abolished altogether.
Let me come back to the question of the revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall. As long as there is no Prince of Wales these revenues are vested in His Majesty, and I wish once again to emphasise the fact that by His Majesty's gracious wish and express desire the whole of the revenues from the Duchy of Cornwall now amounting to about £104,000 are to be applied to the relief of the amount of the Civil List, and even though those revenues should be increased by His Majesty's own administration of the Duchy, nevertheless he is not suggesting that any part of them should accrue to himself. That is the way in which His Majesty desired to deal with the revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall.

Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Is it the whole of the revenues or is it all the revenues except the addition which is to be made to the revenues of the Duke of York?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The additional allowance which is to be made to the Duke of York is to be the first charge upon this £104,000. I was just going to explain that point. His Majesty, in his Gracious Message on 11th March, expressed a wish that suitable provision should be made for the Duke of York as the Heir Presumptive to the Throne and also for his family in certain events. Accordingly the Committee, in paragraph 11, have made provision for an additional sum of £25,000 to be made for the Duke of York so long as he remains the Heir Presumptive; but His Majesty has signified his intention of providing this £25,000 out of the revenue of the Duchy of Cornwall so long as those revenues are vested in himself. Therefore, that would be the first charge on the £104,000, leaving £79,000 as the balance of the revenues.
Now, the Privy Purse in Class I amounts altogether to £110,000. In accordance with previous practice, £33,000 of that sum will be set aside for Her Majesty the Queen, and that amount will remain undrawn, as I have already said, so long as His Majesty is unmarried. That leaves £77,000 as the Privy Purse of His Majesty, and that sum will he provided out of the revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall—the £79,000 remaining after provision is made for the Duke of York. That leaves a balance of £2,000 which, by His Majesty's desire, will go to relieve Class Therefore the whole of the £104,000 will relieve State Funds in the way I have described. Although His Majesty is unmarried, hon. Members will remember that in his Gracious Message he expressed his desire that the contingency of his marriage should lie taken into account, and that suitable provision should be made for Her Majesty the Queen and for the members of His Majesty's family in the same way as the House of Commons has been willing to provide in similar circumstances in previous reigns. That desire has been dealt with in paragraphs 6 and 8 of the Report, and it will be seen that the proposals of the Committee in those two

paragraphs deal with tile contingency of the Queen and the members of His Majesty's family, with the exception of his eldest son, and the case of the eldest son, who would, of course, be Duke of Cornwall and entitled as such to the revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall, is dealt with in paragraph 11.
Unless there were some special provisions made, the revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall, on the birth of the Prince of Wales, would accumulate during the minority of the Prince, and the result of that would be that when the Prince attained his majority these accumulations would have reached a very large sum and would provide an income which would be in excess of the requirements of the Prince of Wales. Accordingly, His Majesty, taking that into consideration, made proposals which are the subject of recommendations by the Committee and are to be found in paragraph 11. Under these proposals, the first charge during the minority of the Prince of Wales upon the revenues of the Duchy will continue to be £25,000 for the Duke of York. After that it is proposed that from the residue a voluntary contribution to the Exchequer should be paid equal to the amounts of Income Tax and Surtax chargeable for the time being upon an income of the same size in private hands. The total of that at the present time is £45,000. Then there follows a, further charge of £25,000 which it is intended shall make provision for the maintenance and education of the infant Duke and also shall enable an annual sum to be paid to trustees for the purpose of making provision for the Princess of Wales if subsequently the Prince of Wales should marry. The idea of the Committee is that the provision should follow that which has been made on previous occasions, and for that purpose they have been advised that it would be desirable that a sum of not less than £10,000 a year should be set aside. Therefore, this sum of £25,000 would cover not less than £10,000 as an annuity to be paid to the trustees of the future Princess of Wales, and the remainder would be the sum available for the maintenance and education of the Duke.

Mr. MAXTON: What kind of education?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The ordinary normal education. On the present


revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall, a surplus of £9,000 would be allowed to accumulate during the minority of the Prince of Wales. I think I have gone through all the important features of the proposals of the Committee. I observe that there are some Amendments on the Paper to the First Resolution, but I think I had better reserve anything I may have to say until I hear what hon. Members opposite may say to the Committee on the subjects of those Amendments.

6.25 p.m.

Mr. STEPHEN: On a point of Order. I would like to refer to the Chancellor's suggestion that there should be a general discussion. As my hon. Friends and myself are responsible for some Amendments, I would ask you, in preference to that course, whether you would indicate which of the Amendments down on the Paper you propose to call. I think it would be for the convenience of the House if that were done now.

The CHAIRMAN: It is my intention in due course to call first the Amendment in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. I should say that as that Amendment would obviously restrict the extent of the Debate, I do not propose to call it until a convenient time when the discussion seems to have proceeded far enough with regard to the Resolutions in general. After that, I propose to call the last two Amendments on the Order Paper in the names of the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) and other hon. Members.

Mr. STEPHEN: Further to my point of Order. There are two important issues raised in the first two Amendments standing in the names of myself and my hon. Friends. First, there is the question of whether it would not be more suitable if the House agreed to our proposal with regard to His Majesty's Privy Purse, that a certain use should be made of the Royal Palaces as national hospitals for sick persons; and, secondly, there is the important question of the revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall and the Duchy of Lancaster; and as the third Resolution proposes an amendment of the law with regard to the Civil List and the hereditary revenues and Grants for the Royal Family, I submit that those are two important Amendments. Therefore, I

wonder whether it would not be possible for you to reconsider your decision not to take them.

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid I cannot do that, because I have given very careful consideration to those two Amendments, and I must make it quite clear that they are definitely out of order.

6.28 p.m.

Mr. MAXTON: Further to the point of Order. The occasions on which this House has an opportunity of dealing with the emoluments of Royalty are few and far between. The right of this House to deal with those matters is not denied, and having regard to the infrequency of those opportunities, I wish to ask whether you would see that the Committee has the most complete freedom to discuss every aspect of these Amendments. This is our one and only opportunity of discussing these matters and I suggest to you that, since the matters which we bring before the Committee in these Amendments are of considerable importance, we should have the opportunity of moving the Amendments and having a Division on them and not merely referring to them in a casual way in the course of a general Debate. I ask you, Sir Dennis, whether you are Ruling them out of order for the Committee to discuss?

6.29 p.m.

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid I cannot assist the hon. Member by telling him what Parliamentary opportunities he may or may not have. It is my duty here to keep the Debate within the limits of the Standing Orders and Rules of Procedure in regard to this Committee of the House, and as the hon. Member will probably agree, it is quite clear that under our procedure the two Amendments to which he refers are definitely out of order. In the circumstances I should have no power to do what he asks even if I wished to do so.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I feel sure that I am expressing the general view of the Committee when I say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has explained these proposals in a manner which has made their import perfectly clear. I thank him for that, and also for the objective manner in which he hasp dealt with this subject. I rise to explain,


quite simply and as briefly as I can, the views of the Opposition with regard to this settlement. I preface my remarks by pointing out that it cannot be expected that we on these benches should approach this matter from precisely the same standpoint as hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. The close contact which many of us have with homes in which there is a great shortage of all the necessaries of life, and in which individuals suffer great hardship and poverty, forces some comparison with the large figures presented to us in these Resolutions.
Moreover, the system of society which, on its main lines, finds favour and support from hon. Members opposite is thought by many of us to be wrong and indefensible and we are sent here as representatives for the express purpose of taking steps to change that system. We recognise, however, that not only is the Crown above and outside all party differences and all questions of party outlook but that, in our Constitution, it is one of the bulwarks of democratic government. We also recognise that today the Monarch is not merely King of these islands, but a central pillar of the British Commonwealth, to a far greater extent than has ever been the case in previous times. Finally, we know that we have in our present King a man who has a more direct and intimate association and sympathy with the common people than, perhaps, any monarch since the days of Charles II.
Quite bluntly, we on these benches are not in favour of expensive and extravagant ceremonial. Equally, we know that you cannot run royalty on the cheap. We regard royal palaces, royal entertainments and royal farms as national institutions and their upkeep as being rightly a national charge. It was from this angle that the members of our party who sat on the Select Committee approached their task. We regarded it as our duty to ask for a great deal of information and it is only right to say that that information was frankly accorded to us. Speaking for myself, and I believe for those of my colleagues who served on that Committee, I was satisfied that the waste and extravagance and the emoluments of sinecures which were characteristic of courts in days gone by, had to a great extent been eliminated.

If there are still any economies to be effected advantageously, I believe they are small in extent and will not make a great deal of difference to the total amount.
In the report of the Select Committee it has been made clear that it is by the express wish of His Majesty that the effects of the economies made in the last reign are almost wholly to inure to the benefit of the public purse. We appreciate His Majesty's decision in the matter. We further acknowledge with appreciation the proposal of His Majesty to hand over the whole of the revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall, so long as he has no son, and that after the birth of a son a certain part of those revenues should also inure to the benefit of the Exchequer while that son is in his minority. It is on that basis that the Chancellor's figures are constructed, and desirous as we are of upholding the honour and dignity of the Royal House, we give them our support, and I am authorised to say that my colleagues on these benches approve of our decision.
The Committee should realise however that these provisions do not constitute the whole of the picture. Reference is made, in the course of these definite proposals, to the revenues from the Duchy of Cornwall. The Committee will have realised that no provision of any kind is made, directly and separately, for the Prince of Wales on his attainment of his majority. That is because it is out of the Duchy of Cornwall and not directly out of revenue that it is proposed to find the means of providing him with an income. In addition to the Duchy of Cornwall, there is the Duchy of Lancaster. The precise position of those great estates has been the subject in the past of a great deal of constitutional discussion. I will only say now that these estates are clearly differentiated in many ways from ordinary private property. But they have never been surrendered with the Crown lands. The revenues of the Duchy of Lancaster have been vested in His Majesty the King for the time being, while the revenues of the Duchy of Corn wall have been vested in the Prince of Wales in his capacity as Duke of Cornwall. That has been so even during the minority of the Prince in previous reigns. These revenues have then been allowed to accumulate for the future benefit of the Prince.
I wish to direct the consideration of the Committee to the consequences of the present position. As I have said, it is unchallengeable that the Crown stands above and outside party differences. I believe it will be accepted in all parts of the House that it is most desirable that that position should be maintained. I am sure there is a general wish that nothing should arise to prevent the continuance of that situation. In former years Parliament concerned itself little if at all with economic issues. At that time, the ownership of property was unchallenged, and the position of these Duchies presented no difficulty. To-day, economic issues are in the forefront of our political discussions and the precise rights of property are hotly debated on the Floor of this House. We have to remember, not only the position as it is to-day but the position as it is likely to be in years to come. The settlement which we are making now is not like the arrangements that are made in the ordinary course of Supply, to come up year by year. These arrangements are designed to last for the whole reign of the Sovereign, and in every part of the House we all desire and hope that that will represent a very great number of years. It is not possible to forecast the attitude of future Parliaments on many of these large questions concerning property. Great changes are taking place in public opinion and it is exceedingly possible that they will be reflected in the Debates in this House.
Let me take one illustration. We were informed by the Government at the General Election that one of the changes about to be brought into effect was the unification of mining royalties. We now know that by unification they meant nationalisation. It is possible, when that subject arises in the House, that there will be Debates, possibly acrimonious Debates, regarding the precise method of compensation or whatever it may be, which will be proposed in connection with that subject. I am not revealing any secret when I tell hon. Members that a very substantial part of the revenues of the Duchy of Lancaster is derived from mining royalties. The House is bound to consider very carefully whether it will be in any way embarrassing if the interests of His Majesty are directly involved in our discussions at that time.
I do not want to go into further detail with regard to the other classes of property which are involved both in the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall, but I think it is clear that questions will arise in this Chamber, as time goes on, which will cause a certain amount of difficulty and may jeopardise the position which I have described of the Crown as being outside and above all questions debated in this House. That is in spite of the fact, which I think we all recognise, that the administration of the two Duchies has been carried out, at the express wish of the late King George so far as the Duchy of Lancaster is concerned and of the present King, as Duke of Cornwall, in the days when he was Prince of Wales, with great liberality and in the very best way that property could be administered.
There is another aspect of this question which also deserves attention. The fixed provision that we are being called upon to make in these Resolutions is only a part of the real revenues of His Majesty and of any future Prince of Wales. The receipts from the other part are dependent on these estates and are necessarily, therefore, of a fluctuating character. For a considerable number of years there has been an upward tendency, but no one would be prepared to say precisely what will be the future changes that will take place. There may be further growth, there may be fluctuations and in certain circumstances which we cannot foresee—such, for instance, as the calamity of a great war—there might even be a very considerable falling off. The Committee have certainly to consider whether it is desirable that there should be this rather uncertain part of the revenues falling to His Majesty and to the Prince of Wales, and whether it is not better that these things should be dealt with in a different way. I have spoken mainly of the Duchy of Lancaster, but similar considerations apply to the Duchy of Cornwall, although there are quite distinct differences.
I will not, in this general Debate, go in detail into the proposals which were put forward by my colleagues and myself on the Select Committee. They are contained on pages 42 and 43 of the report. I will confine myself now to saying that the effect of these proposals would not be to change the immediate


revenue of His Majesty at all, but would be to stabilise it; and that, so far as the Prince of Wales—if there be a Prince of Wales—is concerned, the effect would be to make some alteration, but I think that it would leave him with adequate resources to meet the requirements of the case. It may he said that there is a certain impracticability in handing over the revenues of these properties to the benefit of the Exchequer, but I would remind the Committee that the effect of the proposals which we are now discussing is, at any rate for a certain period, to hand over to the Exchequer the entire revenues from the Duchy of Cornwall. Therefore, the principle about which I am speaking is, in fact, embodied for a limited number of years in these proposals with regard to the Duchy of Cornwall now before us. My hon. Friends and I have put down an Amendment in the shape of a token reduction. Our object in taking that course is to give an opportunity to the Committee to express its opinion on the proposals which find their place in the last two pages of the report of the Select Committee. At the appropriate time the Amendment will be moved in order that that opinion may be registered.
I have purposely followed the Chancellor of the Exchequer in putting these views and statements before the Committee in an entirely objective manner because I thought, as no doubt he did, that that was the most seemly and fitting way to address myself to the question. Whatever may be the outcome of our deliberations, I am certain that we shall all agree that the strong hold that His Majesty has on the Empire is not in the splendour of his palaces or of his court, but the fact that he reigns in the hearts of his people, and not less in the hearts of the poorest and humblest than in those of the highest in the land.

6.52 p.m.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: The fact that in this House, elected on a universal suffrage, and including in its membership a strong and vigorous representation of the Socialist party, there has been almost as close an approximation to unanimity as there has ever been in the many debates which have taken place on the main issues which we are discussing today is a striking proof of the attachment

of the British people to the Throne. Far from cooling with the passage of time, that attachment has grown ever warmer as successive monarchs have increasingly entered into the work and lives of the people. It is worth observing that no prince in our history has ever ascended the Throne who was known personally to so large a number of his subjects both at home and overseas, who had won so large a measure of personal respect and good will, and who had already rendered as Prince of Wales such varied and memorable services to the country, as the present King. Recent political and constitutional developments, and in particular the Statute of Westminster, have left the Crown as the one constitutional link between the members of the British Commonwealth of free nations and have thereby thrown increased work and responsibility upon the King; and the importance of maintaining the unity of that commonwealth, which preserves freedom, justice and peace over one-fifth of the surface of the globe, was never more apparent than in the troublous and dangerous times through which the world is now passing.
At home it is impossible to assess the value of the stimulus which royal interest and patronage give to every kind of humanitarian, literary, artistic, educational and industrial activity in this country. The honour arid renown which the late King and the present King as Prince of Wales have won for themselves in the United States of America and other countries are imponderable assets of inestimable value to the country. It is, therefore, fitting that we, as representatives of the people and also as guardians of the public purse, should approach the question of making proper provision for the maintenance of the dignity of the Throne with a vigil nit regard, as far as it may be necessary, for considerations of public finance, but in no niggling spirit, for there has been nothing niggling or grudging in the spirit in which the Royal Family has interpreted its public duties.
The proposals which are before us today are in themselves a striking illustration of the magnanimity of the King and the completeness with which he identifies his own interests with those of his subjects. The duties of his august position in relation both to the Empire


and to his people have increased, whereas the purchasing power of money is substantially less than it was before the War. Yet, in the proposals which are now before the Committee, a saving of more than £36,000 a, year will be effected in the Civil List, and, in addition to that saving, £119,000 a year will remain undrawn so long as His Majesty remains unmarried—a total saving of £155,000 a year. When all the circumstances are taken into account, it is not the magnitude but the moderation of these proposals which is remarkable. It is not surprising, therefore, that, with the exception of the relatively minor issue to which the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) has referred, the Members of the Select Committee were unanimous in approving these proposals.
Let me turn to the only point of difference which emerged in our discussions and which the hon. Member has so clearly and ably explained, namely, the proposal that the revenues of the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall should accrue to the Treasury in exchange for fixed annuities. The hon. Gentleman has indicated clearly to the Committee that his proposals will not mean that any immediate advantage will accrue to the Treasury by this arrangement, because it is part of his proposals that annuities roughly equivalent to the present income from the Duchies should be paid to the recipient of that income. As regards the Duchy of Cornwall, no possible benefit could accrue to the Treasury for 23 years, that is to say, until the King has married and has had a son and until that son has attained his majority. Any increase in the revenues of the Duchy will, under the proposals of the Select Committee, reduce the amount to be drawn by His Majesty on the Civil List account.
If there were any substantial gain to the public interest in a proposal of this kind, it would have to be weighed very seriously and carefully against other considerations such as those to which I have already drawn attention in the earlier part of my speech. For example, if it could be said that the properties were wastefully or corruptly managed, that the tenants were rack-rented or hardly used, or that valuable assets were undeveloped or deteriorating, indeed, this Committee would no doubt feel that steps

ought to be taken. We went carefully into all these questions. We were treated with the utmost frankness and no information for which we asked was denied us. It was clearly shown that these properties were managed with admirable prudence, enterprise and generosity, that the tenants were contented and proud of their position, and, indeed, that the position of a tenant of either Duchy was a coveted one. Moreover, it was apparent that the present King had taken a keen personal interest in the management of the Duchy of Cornwall which had, of course, been and still is his personal property, and that the notable improvement in the housing on his estates in Southwark and elsewhere were largely due to his personal initiative and stimulus. Surely it must be a good thing in the public interest that the Sovereign should be encouraged to take a personal interest in the practical management of great estates embracing properties which are widely divergent in character and which bring him into practical touch with a wide range of social, industrial, and administrative interests and services. So at any rate we thought unanimously; and it will be observed that the proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down falls short of proposing that there should be any change in the management of the properties. In fact he claimed, mistakenly, as I shall show presently, that his proposal would not result in any change in the management of the properties. The only change for which he asks is in the destination of the revenue.

The CHAIRMAN: I think that I ought to point out to the right hon. Gentleman—I do not want to interfere with his referring to matters in the report of the Select Committee more than is absolutely necessary—that we are not discussing the report as a whole. There may be matters in that which cannot be admitted as in order in this Debate on a Resolution founded on the King's Message. The right hon. Gentleman may realise what I mean if I remind him that I have already ruled an Amendment out of order and a discussion on the lines of that Amendment would also be out of order.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I am most anxious to obey your Ruling and will strive to do so, but I imagine that you would not think it improper for me to reply to


certain observations on this point by the hon. Member who has just resumed his seat.

Mr. BENSON: If the right hon. Gentleman is entitled to reply to my hon. Friend on a matter connected with the Duchies, surely we shall have an opportunity of replying to the right hon. Gentleman?

7.3 p.m.

The CHAIRMAN: That just shows that there are limits to what I can allow the right hon. Baronet to say. It is not always very easy in a matter of this kind to fix the precise limits. That is one of the misfortunes of the Chair, but I have tried to indicate as much as I can by reference to the Amendment which has just been ruled out of order. The hon. Gentleman on the Front Opposition Bench, with great ingenuity, referred to another Amendment which is to be called and suggested that it would have a certain effect. I thought to myself at the time that if it had that effect it would be out of order. Although it is quite obvious that there must be references to the revenues of the Duchies in so far as they are taken into consideration in settling the terms of this Resolution, the Resolution founded on the King's Message does not in any way deal with any proposal to change the ownership of the properties of the Duchy, and therefore I must rule that any argument one way or the other as to whether they should be taken over under the control of Parliament or not is going beyond the scope of the Debate on this Resolution.

Mr. BENSON: Has it not been the custom in past Debates to discuss the question of the ownership of the Duchies at great length on the Money Resolution?

The CHAIRMAN: I have looked that up very carefully, and I have come to the conclusion that had I been in the Chair as long ago as 1910 and 1901, the probability is that the Debate would not have been allowed to extend as far as it did. For the protection of the Committee and the House generally it will be for me to follow the undoubted recognised procedure and confine the Debate to the Money Resolution and the matters covered by the King's Message.

7.6 p.m.

Mr. STEPHEN: In view of what you said just now I would like to ask you whether, where there has been no change of Standing Orders, you are proposing now to correct all the past rulings of previous Chairmen? That seems to me to be the effect of the statement that has been made, and I would remind you that on the basis of those rulings certain proceedings have already taken place in connection with this and, accepting those rulings by predecessors of yours as being sound rulings, we have not taken steps on the previous stage; in connection with this matter. I hope that you are going to allow some general discussion.

7.7 p.m.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is a little mistaken in his facts. In the first place there has been no ruling given on the previous occasions as to the scope of the Debate. The only rulings that were given were the ruling out of order of Amendments similar to those which I have ruled out of order. As far as the Debate is concerned it is not my business to suggest whether any previous Chairman allowed the Debate to go too far or not. It is my business as far as I can to carry out the trust which is reposed in me by the House to keep the Debate within the limits of the Rules and Regulations of the House with regard to Procedure, and on that I would remind the hon. Member when he referred to Standing Orders that they are very far from being a complete code of procedure in this House. I am not in any ruling I have given making any change whatever in the rules of procedure in this House. On the contrary, I am endeavouring to follow and enforce them.

Mr. HARDIE: A few minutes ago you gave the ruling that you were not going to call Amendments but were going to allow a general discussion.

The CHAIRMAN: I made no such ruling.

Mr. HARDIE: If I heard you aright —and I have good hearing—you intimated that you were not gong to take Amendments just now.

The CHAIRMAN: I said that I should not call the Amendments which I did propose to call at some stage until there


had been a general discussion, because quite obviously directly one of these Amendments is called the discussion is confined to the scope of that Amendment.

7.9 p.m.

Mr. BENSON: The Money Resolution we are discussing impinges very closely on the Duchy of Cornwall and there is a reference to change in the law relating to the hereditary revenues. The Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall are both part and parcel of the hereditary revenues. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Oh, yes. With all due deference to the Noble Earl the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), the revenues of Lancaster and Cornwall have for many centuries been reckoned in the hereditary revenue. They may not have been in certain cases considered to be on all fours with that group of properties known as Crown Lands, but they have been considered to be part and parcel of the hereditary revenue, and therefore I hold that we should be entitled to discuss these under Section 2 of this Money Resolution.

Earl WINTERTON: I desire to point out to the hon. Gentleman—he knows perfectly well—that he is almost attempting to mislead the Chair by the statement he has made. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"] He attempted to raise in the Committee the question of whether or not these Duchies were hereditary revenues and it was held in the Committee that the hon. Gentleman was not right. I am sure that his intention was not to mislead the Committee.

The CHAIRMAN: The discussion is getting beyond the precise point of Order put to me by the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) and I had better deal with that. I have considered again very carefully the effect of the particular Resolution to which he refers, and the hon. Gentleman will no doubt recognise that it is on similar lines to one of the Resolutions which always form part of the series of the Budget Resolutions, and it has been ruled over and over again that that particular Resolution refers only to incidental changes in connection with the subject matter of the Resolutions as a whole and, therefore, having considered that matter very carefully, I can find nothing in that particular Resolution to alter the ruling which I have given.

Mr. BENSON: I must ask the Noble Lord to withdraw the statement that I was attempting to mislead the Chair. I still maintain that the Duchies are part and parcel of the hereditary revenues. I specifically stated that they were not necessarily on all fours with the Crown Lands and a mere statement of opinion given inside the Select Committee is not binding on me, and I am not bound to, accept it and I resent the charge of the Noble Lord that I was attempting to mislead the House.

7.13 p.m.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: The hon. Member who preceded me informed the Committee that he moved a reduction of the Vote by £1,000. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] He announced the intention of his Friends to move a reduction of the Vote by £1,000, although they agreed fully with the proposals which are before the Committee except in one respect, and it was in order to draw attention to that difference of opinion that they proposed to move this reduction. That difference is in regard to the revenues of the Duchies. Although the Amendment has been ruled out of order there will be a Division. Therefore we are not allowed to discuss the matter which is to be decided in that Division.

The CHAIRMAN: In the reference I made to the sentence used by the hon. Member on the Front Opposition Bench I said that if it had the effect which he suggested, it would be out of order. In other words this particular matter which I have ruled to be out of order cannot be raised on that Amendment, and a Division would not be an expression of opinion on a matter which cannot arise on the Amendment.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: In that case I will not address myself to that matter.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. STEPHEN: As my hon. Friends and I have a somewhat similar Amendment, I hope that if they do not proceed with their Amendment—[HON. MEMBEES "We shall!"] I take it that you will be ruling the Amendment out of order if they are proceeding with it on those grounds, and I am only anxious now to protect the Amendment standing on the Paper in my name which we do not intend to move on anything like the grounds which have been suggested by


the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence).

The CHAIRMAN: I do not understand the hon. Member's point of Order. If he is again asking me to reverse the Ruling I have already given as to the two Amendments being out of order, I do not propose to do it.

Mr. STEPHEN: I am not referring to those two Amendments but to the fourth Amendment on the Paper. I am seeking to protect that fourth Amendment in view of the statement made by you, Sir Dennis, with reference to the Amendment of the hon. Member on the Front Opposition Bench.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member, I understand, is referring to the Amendment at the top of page 1713:
In line 5, leave out '£410,000' and insert '£310,000.' 
and I agree with him to this extent, that if the immediately preceding Amendment were riot moved I should probably call that one; but I would remind him that the ruling I have just given with regard to the Amendment on the previous page in the name of the Leader of the Opposition applies to the next Amendments of the hon. Member and his friends.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: It is quite clear that on all the matters which we are allowed to discuss this afternoon the whole Committee is in favour of the proposals which are before us—with the exception of the hon. Members of the Independent Labour party, whose views I have not heard and to which therefore I shall not attempt to reply. I should also except the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher). The whole of the rest of the Committee have announced, through their official spokesmen, that they support these proposals and in these circumstances I am glad to be able to add my voice in support of them, and if there is a chance I shall certainly vote in favour of them.

7.18 p.m.

Mr. McGOVERN: I rise to oppose these grants, but I do not propose to deal with this matter from anything like a personal point of view. I want to say at the outset that I am a Socialist and

a republican. I have no time for monarchy of any kind, but this country, which accepts the capitalist system and a capitalist Government, has accepted the institution of monarchy, and I do not propose at this stage to find fault with the general public who are behind the Government of the day and behind the institutions as they exist. If I were a Conservative I should he entirely satisfied with the present Royal Family. I should consider that they as a Royal Family, representing the capitalist system, and being the first line of defence in that system, are fully competent to represent it in a fairly decent manner; but I object to the lavish expenditure in the past and that is proposed to be made for the succeeding generation, by the provision of large sums of money for various members of the Royal Family. I do not represent capitalism or royalty. I represent the other end of the social ladder. I represent people on the means test, who are struggling along with inadequate wages and long hours, in many cases living in slums under conditions which are not fit for the very brute beasts of the field.
I say it is fitting that this Vote should be enthusiastically endorsed, as the right hon. Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) has said it will be, by all sections in this House. The Labour party, the Liberal party, the Conservative party, the National Labour party and the National Liberal party, all wings and all sections of the House, are supporting the proposals before us. They have one or two small technical objections that seem to have been ruled out by the wisdom, shall I say, of the Chairman, and to that I do not intend to object at this stage. I will only say that the sums of money which are going to be voted enthusiastically by this House ought to be looked upon with a measure of contempt when one sees the usual display of antagonism to the working class, and the methods used to push the working class into poverty and subjection. From 1910 Royalty has cost this country nearly £11,000,000 directly. Those who represent capitalism may say that they are getting full and good value for that money.
I am not interested in the Royal Family, because I do not live or have my being among that section of the ruling


class. The Chancellor who is asking for this Vote is the direct representative of a man who was at one time looked upon as the republican mayor of Birmingham. He is lavish in his praise of the present Royal Family, and so also has been a Member of the Liberal party and a Member of the Labour party. Days have changed and circumstances have changed. There were periods in the past when Royal Families were in very low water, due to their lives of debauchery, and it was well recognised throughout the world that they were not fitting representatives of even a capitalist State. But to-day we are discussing people whom we all believe to be decent and to be carrying out the duties that capitalism imposes upon them in a fairly decent manner.
I remember in my boyhood days hearing lectures and reading articles from the Member for West Stirling (Mr. T. Johnston), one of the greatest anti-monarchists we have in the country, who is in the Labour party. I do not see him here to-night. He has written more against monarchy than any man I know. He has attacked the salaries paid to the Royal Family, but his absence to-night is a satisfactory explanation of the changes that have taken place in the Labour party. The present Member for Seaham Harbour (Mr. Shinwell) was also one of the most ferocious—as he is in all things ferocious —in his denunciations of Royalty. I used to hear him on Glasgow Green, in the Glasgow City Hall and in the streets of Glasgow. He was always the strong man against monarchy. Well, they are both absent to-day, they are not in their seats to take part in this discussion and give us of their wisdom their contributions against monarchy; and therefore I say that the changes which have taken place in the Labour party are evidence of the changes that have gone on among the people who have won a stake in things. Instead of the Throne moving away from the Labour party the Labour party move nearer and nearer to the Throne. We find in consequence that there is no real division of opinion in this House in connection with this matter, though one or two Members here and there may say that they oppose or are going into the Lobby against the Vote. I do not grumble at that, but I do say that if they are going into the Lobby against this Vote there are many other

occasions when they have gone into the Lobby against the working class, when the party whip was cracked. To-night I hope we shall have a larger Lobby when the Division is called.
I am opposed to these proposals. First and foremost it is proposed to provide £110,000 a year for the present King—for his personal purse. I believe that to be an outrageous sum to give to any one individual. I believe that even in face of the argument of the apologists of the Labour party when they say, "We recognise the King now as the head of the Civil Service" as a sort of salving of their consciences for the change in their outlook. Would any person in any kind of business or trust make such proposals to a Board of directors or a company as are before this House to-night—to give £110,000 to one individual yearly? Let us contrast that with what is given to an unemployed man—17s. a week. What difference is there between the two individuals? They are made of the same flesh and blood. They are both sections of the unemployed. One is in the unemployable section and another in the unemployed section.

Mr. MacLAREN: Is not the hon. Member aware that this Vote is going to give the King nothing?

Mr. McGOVERN: If that is the line of action, if I were allowed by the Chairman I would put that side also and prove that these lands do not belong to the Crown at all, that they belonged to the State, and that they were taken back from the State by vast sums of money that were paid to previous Kings and their sons. If that is the line of excuse, shall I say, I am prepared to meet it; but I am rather weary of all the excuses which are given as reasons when people want to justify action of any kind. It annoys hon. Members sometimes when a member of the Royal Family is contrasted with an unemployed man. Is not an unemployed man in this country as good as any monarch, as good as the son of any monarch? Is not an unemployed woman as good as the Queen? Is she not as good as any female member of the Royal Family in this country? The wealth producers, after all, produce the wealth from which everything comes, and the provision being made under these proposals to-night will be wrung, directly or indirectly, from the class who


are at the bottom of the social ladder. The old woman, the old-age pensioner, will pay her pittance of taxation in various ways in order to contribute to the upkeep of these people.
Why should we discuss these proposals in the way we do, and assume that the more money we lavish on a Royal Family the more we show our patriotism, our intelligence and our appreciation of their services I The right hon. Gentleman who spoke last talked about the way in which the present Monarch has endeared himself to the hearts of the public of this country, but is it not true that necessity has driven Royalty to many extremes in order to see that the job of Royalty is not one of the past merely After all, Royalty has passed away in almost every country in the world, and I only say this in passing to those who advance that line of argument, that the two changes which I can perceive in this country, one as a danger and the other as a pleasure to me, are for Socialism or for Fascism, and neither Socialism nor Fascism as a system has any time for Monarchy of any kind.
This sum of money which you are proposing to-night, this £110,000, is first and foremost for the Monarch, to give to him, to this individual. He has only, as was said by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) the other night, one stomach, he can only wear one suit of clothes at a time, he has only the worth of one human being, and why should you give him a sum of money of that description, even if we recognise the argument put forward by some people that he is the head of the State? You pay to the Prime Minister £5,000 a year. He has responsibility, he has cares, he is the rceognised head of the democratic State. We pay him £5,000 a year, and out of his own pocket he pays expenses connected with his office, but we give to another individual, who has not the same cares or responsibilities, the sum of £110,000 for a purely decorative job that is kept as a symbol of a system of exploitation and robbery.
Therefore, we say that that sum of money to the Monarch cannot be justified by any human being in this House. They may attempt it, they may put on the best face they can, they may show to the House and the country that they are

giving an appreciation of that one individual, but I say that it is an outrage that that sum of money should be devoted to any person by this House, and it ought to be opposed by every person who comes here directly representing people from the mine, the workshop, the factory, the field, the parish, or the labour exchange queue. If they represent that section of the people, the exploited section, they ought to stand four-square against every form remuneration by such high sums as this. But that is not the end of the story. We make provision for the wife of the King, if he should marry. We propose to give, in addition to his 110,000, something like £33,000 into—

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member is mistaken. The £33,000 is part of the £110,000, not an addition to it, but is not drawn till the King marries.

Mr. McGOVERN: I took the figure of £110,000 from the right hon. Gentleman, and if I made a mistake, I withdraw and apologise, but I say that whether it is £110,000 plus £33,000, or whether that is included, you are making provision for the probable coming of a Prince and Princess of Wales, members of the family, and we are asked to vote sums of money for every child that comes into that Royal household and to maintain them for life. Show me the employer or the company that considers any workman or member of the staff and says, Now, Mr. Brown, your wife has had a child, and we propose to give you an addition of £1 a week in order to maintain that child." When you come to this House and make proposals of this character to increase the allowance for every member of the Household, I say it is outrageous. There is no talk about the personal means of the individual, because there must be very vast sums of money held by all these people out of the moneys paid them in the past. Out of the £11,000,000 that has gone to them in the last 25 years there must be a tremendous; accumulation of wealth.
When we come to the Prince of Wales, he is born, not into a slum, not on to a 2s. a week existence; he is born into a £10,000 a year existence, and it is proposed to create a fund that will give him at the age of 21 something like £210,000 as a gift, with the accumulated


interest, and on to that £250,000 that is handed over to him direct from the State, we give an addition of £10,000, and if he marries £25,000, and something for every member of his family to keep them going on in perpetuity on the backs of the common people of this country. I say that that system of parasitical monarchy is an outrage in an age when we might have expected that Governments of this country and of the world would try to conform to the changes that have taken place in the minds of the people owing to the increased misery and poverty that are to be found in abundance.
We had the Monarch in Glasgow not so long ago. He visited slums and working-class homes, and he himself, we are told, according to reliable sources, expressed antagonism to the conditions under which the people were living. He said that scales of relief were too low and that rents were too high. When he said that, he was in effect condemning the people who represent the capitalist system of society, and we say that to treat in this way the workers who produce the wealth and make it possible for every person to live in luxury and comfort is an outrage in this year of 1936. We are opposed to it root and branch, and I say in this House that, so far as I and the party with which I am associated are concerned, we shall continue to pursue our line of antagonism to these vast sums of money being given, and we shall go into the Lobby against their being given. We are told by the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) that the Royal family does not cost the country anything. I want to read to him a quotation from "Textbook of English History," by Osmund Airy, His Majesty's Inspector of Schools in 1891, who says, on page 416:
George' Prince of Wales, son of George III, handsome and clever, but a liar, a spendthrift, and a debauchee, like all the heirs apparent of his house, applied to Parliament to pay his debts, amounting to £250,000, which Parliament paid…. In 1796 the Prince incurred fresh debts, amounting to £700,000, which were also paid by Parliament.
Here is an extract from "Our Old Nobility," page 188, regarding George
The Ministry had to demand of the House £500,000 for the payment of the King's debts.

The CHAIRMAN: I think this is rather ancient history.

Mr. McGOVERN: Yes, Sir Dennis, but the House is ancient, and I am dealing with an ancient institution. I am using this merely as an illustration. The total debt paid at that time amounted to £1,450,000. According to present values that will be £11,000,000. What the Crown lost at that time became the property of the State, because the State had paid the debts incurred by the Monarch and his son. Therefore, this argument that is used continually as an excuse by Ministers at that Box, that these annual payments are not costing the nation any money at all, is based on a false foundation and ought not to, be used in this House. Members will tell us all sorts of fairy tales concerning royalty that ought to be told to children of from one year to five years old, but for my part I am under no delusion. The monarchical institution is a useless thing in a modern State. It is simply a dressing for the capitalist State. I oppose it as a Republican and as a Socialist, and I shall go into the Lobby and vote on every occasion against the provision of any sums other than small sums for what are termed the heads of the Civil Service in this country.

7.40 p.m.

Mr. ALAN HERBERT: I hope to be in order if I make a small practical suggestion which ought, I think, to commend itself to the last speaker, because it will make quite a difference, if adopted, to the happiness of real workers. I wish to refer to Class V of these arrangements, to be found on page 11. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his very interesting speech, when he came to Class V, "Royal Bounty, Alms, and Special Services," passed that by very hurriedly and merely said that it remained unchanged. I wish, in all humility, to suggest the hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer may think fit to recommend to the House, and it may be to His Majesty, that there shall be a change there. I refer to the list of pensions granted under Section 9 of the Civil List Act, 1910, and Section 6 of the Civil List Act, 1837. The Section of that latter Act stated:
Whereas it was resolved by the Commons House of Parliament, 'That it is the


bounden duty of the responsible advisers to the Crown to recommend to His Majesty for grants of pensions on the Civil List such persons only as have just claims on the Royal beneficence or who by their personal services to the Crown, by the performance of duties to the public, or by their useful discoveries in science and attainments in literature and the arts have merited the gracious consideration of the Sovereign and the gratitude of their country'"—
and so on. The figure fixed by that Act of 1837 was £1,200, and this year it is distributed in 14 pensions of not more than £100 in any case to persons who have fallen by the way and who have done distinguished service in the fields of art and science. I suggest that this is a figure which might well be raised. We are in many ways, with all our great traditions and enlightenment and our great history, still a barbarous country, if I may say so, and in nothing more, I think, than in our attitude to the arts and sciences. This is the only point at which the State does recognise in a monetary sense the triumphs of the artistic and scientific world, the world of thought and medicine and so on. Unlike the citizens represented by the hon. Members opposite, who, with all their misfortunes, are watched over by the State from the cradle to the grave, and who have pensions very often, and quite rightly—I am glad they have—the people for whom I am speaking get nothing at all, unless it be for this £1,200 a year, which is the present figure.
I am not going to tell any hard stories, though I could tell many, but I think it necessary to say to the Prime Minister, who, I believe, recommends these grants and who is doubtless bombarded on behalf of a vast number of worthy applicants who do not get anything, that I am sure that he, who takes such art interest in art, literature, and science, would say that there are many occasions when he would most gladly recommend that these pensions should be increased. I suggest that as this figure was fixed at £1,200 in 1837 it would be a graceful act, and one that His Majesty would perhaps appreciate as a kind of Coronation gesture next year, if this figure were doubled to £2,400. I would ask hon. Members to realise the smallness of the figure and to look into their consciences and see whether they are really satisfied that—if we are going to adopt the

principle of recognising and assisting those, not necessarily writers but it may be doctors, musicians, painters or others who are in need and have done good work—the present amount allocated is sufficiently generous.

7.46 p.m.

Mr. HARDIE: The one thing that I wish to speak about, in the first place, is to ask what right has any, Government or any Parliament at any time to make provision so far in the future as is covered in this Civil List? We are dealing here with the incomes from two sections of land. It a great pity that we are not dealing with the income of all land. But here are the incomes of two sections, and a certain sum of money is involved. If it had been a question simply of dealing with provision for one person as head of the Civil List the matter under discussion would have been confined to a very narrow point. Why should any one individual in a State which calls itself a Christian State be provided for not only in regard to his own future and the future of his wife, if he marries, but even the future of any children that he may have? To-night we are dealing with a proposal of £10,000 for a son that may be born to the King if he marries. There are sons being born to-night and daughters being born to-night, the sons and daughters of men and women just as good as any of those whom we are discussing under this kind of Estimate. I know of five homes to-night where there are expectant mothers, and in those homes there is not that provision of things that there ought to be where additions to the population are expected.
It seems to me that while some people want to claim to be loyal and to use all the other nice phrases that they like to use, they became so enthusiastic that they are indifferent to the realities of life. A son or daughter born in a working-class home is just as good as any son or daughter born anywhere else, or in any palace in the world. I object to the provision that is being made in this Civil List. Out of the money that we are going to pay to His Majesty he ought to keep his wife and family, as other people have to keep their wives and families. But the Civil List is not simply restricted to making provision for the


future wife and the future family. When we come to the realities connected with this Royalty business, we find that we have to pay big sums every year to each one of the relatives. Why? In a working-class household to-day, if a father, a mother, a son or a. daughter are unemployed, the relatives are called into account under the means test in order to see what they can contribute, before the State steps in and does anything in the way of benefit; but in this case no questions are to be asked, and if there is the possibility of a family coming, then he is to get £10,000 per child. He may not marry and, therefore, he may not have a family.
The report which I have read of the visits of His Majesty to certain working-class areas have shown me that if he were free and not surrounded by those who make so much of Royalty, he would be up against things that any decent fellow would protest against. What an awful time a King must have with these people all pressing round him, trying to get favours and trying to make him believe all sorts of things rather than the limitations which are to be seen in the country. If he had the freedom of an ordinary citizen he would break through all these things round about him and would see through all the people who are about him, saying: "Do not let the thing down, or you will let us down." The people who support this kind of thing called Royalty, are all of the same type. They have no real feeling about nation or country. It is a case of their vain feelings, especially the women, who say proudly that they have seen certain Royalty pass.
To-night in the east end of the city of Glasgow births are taking place in one-room tenements. In those houses the doctor in most cases will have to go out to adjoining houses in order to try and find sufficient blankets and clothing to meet the needs of the household. Yet we are sitting complacently here thinking about the future of a child who may or may not be born and making provision that in the event of the birth of that child £10,000 shall be guaranteed. If we had any Christianity at all we should not act as we are doing. But we do not do these things from the Christian basis. We are lip-service Christians only. When it comes to the question of social justice in

regard to the distribution of the world's goods, and this is part of the distribution of the world's goods, we find that when the son who is not yet born attains the age of 21 there is to be an increase of £5,000, up to £15,000. We do things very queerly in this country. We have been discussing an Education Bill in Committee. We are dealing there with the question of the sons and daughters of citizens and have been trying to get provision whereby every child will at least, up to the age of 15 years, have the right to assimilate what we call our education. We have asked that in ease where the. family income is insufficient to provide the necessary funds maintenance grants should be given, in order that these children should be able to obtain these educational qualifications, but we have been told that there is no possibility of doing that, because there is not sufficient money in the country to deal with things of that sort. If there is not sufficient money in the country—I know that the distribution of the money that we are discussing to-night would not go round—since we cannot do anything for the mass, why do it for one? We hear it suggested sometimes that the people we are providing for to-night are gifted with special brains; as if they got them from some special God Almighty source.
I am pleading that the Government in dealing with the distribution of moneys under its control will devote their mind to pressing needs. Imagine what is going to take place. There is to be provision of £70,000 for the widow of someone who is not yet married. Why? Why should anyone have £70,000 as a pension? We are always told in this House, when we are dealing with questions of economy especially, that the working classes while they have been in good work ought to have saved enough for the time when the rainy day comes. In the present case there is no question of what may have been saved while she may have been the wife of the King; but the moment she becomes a widow she is to get a pension of £70,000 a year. What do we do for other widows? It is these contrasts that are bound to face us in this House to-day. Most hon. Members have got it into their heads that there is some real difference between the people for whom we are now providing and the working classes. They do not realise that it is only a question of whether a child happens to be born in


a poor house or a rich house. Why should the children or the prospective children of any one man receive the kind of treatment proposed, when we know what is -taking place in the country to-day? We know of adult men and women who are idle through unemployment, and yet the Government through its Education Bill before the House are trying to provide cheap boy and girl labour, while adults of the same class are unemployed. These are the things which have to be contrasted one with the other, and they will take me into the Lobby on every opportunity against every one of these proposals.
I do not believe in Royalty, and never have done. I have always been a Radical, a Republican, a Socialist ever since I have been able to think clearly about these things. It would have been good business to-night if we had been able to obtain an explanation why at any time there should be special consideration given even for houses under this Civil List. When we are presenting salaries such as are now proposed, they ought to provide their own houses. Here we have a widow's pension proposed of £70,000 a year, and we contrast it with widows' pensions of the working class of 7s. 6d., 5s. and even 2s. 6d. in some places. Every one of these things is an insult to the human being. I hope the vote will go against the Government.

8.0 p.m.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I do not want in any way to criticise the recipients of these moneys that are in the Civil List because, in the existing circumstances, and in view of the demands that are made upon them by the aristocracy of this country, probably these sums, though very large, are necessary. I do not propose, either, to raise the question which has been mentioned by the last speaker, of the desirability or the undesirability of a constitutional monarchy as a form of government in this country. At the present moment we have a constitutional monarchy, whatever its benefits and virtues may be, or whatever its disadvantages may be; there are many more important questions to be discussed than that, which is academic now, of the relative values of a monarchy versus a republic.
I desire to draw attention to one special aspect of this matter, as I regard it

of very deep import ante to the future good government of this country, and it arises directly out of the consideration of the Civil List. The opportunities which we have for discussing these matters are, unfortunately, not very frequent, and therefore anyone who desires to make observations on the matter has to take the chance when he can get it. These very large sums of money have to be devoted to the Civil List because of the standards of lavishness and luxury that are imposed upon the Royal Family of this country by the traditional demands of our aristocratic society. It is unnecessary, perhaps, to discuss whether such a development was preventable or not; it is certainly of direct and immediate importance to consider whether it is any longer justified, and what its reaction is upon the government of this country.
It was stated recently in a newspaper that the effect of the withdrawal of the ban upon entertainments, which ban had resulted from the death of the late King, would be an expenditure during this season of close upon £10,000,000, in luxury articles and services of all kinds connected with aristocracy. That figure may be accurate, as a guess, or may be inaccurate, but it illustrates the very large extent of luxury expenditure which is attached to the incidence of a Court circle, and to the snobbery of those outside who ape its performances. No one would justify that expenditure on the ground that it is luxury expenditure. I think everybody in the House would agree that, while the masses go without, such an extravagance can, in itself, have no justification. It is argued that the display of Court functions, and all that penumbra of imitative events that surround them, are necessary to show the pomp and circumstance of the Sovereign, and that, in any event, the people enjoy it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I thought that would get an echo from the benches opposite. I do not for a moment doubt that the mass of the people of this country like a good procession with plenty of bands and gold lace. Those can always be provided for them by the armed forces of the Crown and the police. Those displays have no necessary relation to the amount of expenditure which appears in the Civil List, or to the Court circle or the Palace entourage.
Of course, in the days when the rich landowners and merchants of this country had a complete monopoly of political as well as of economic power in the country, it did not very much matter that they should form a close and impenetrable circle about the Throne. Elaborate Court costumes, expensive uniforms and costly entertainments were their hobby, and were paid for by the exploitation of the workers then as they are paid for by the same exploitation to-day. The Government was always a Government by the few for the few, and it did not matter very much that one set utilised the Court to scheme against and overthrow their rivals. A few heads were lost, a few new additions were made to the Peerage; but, so far as the people were concerned, the matter proceeded much as it was before. In the depths of their poverty, they hardly felt or realised those little ripples on the surface of the national life.
To-day, things are very different. The workers, through their representatives, are in responsible positions, and the Throne should be surrounded not by one class or, rather, by one section of one class, but by persons truly representative of the people as a whole. There should be no provision or regulation, and no atmosphere, to prevent, as in fact everybody knows they do prevent, the representatives of the workers from exercising as great an influence on the Throne as the representatives of any other class. So long as the standards of this Civil List pertain it is clear that, of those two nations which Disraeli described so many years ago, and which still exist in this country, one alone can have any general access to, or influence upon, the Sovereign.

Mr. RADFORD: Surely the hon. and learned Member agrees that His Majesty is always accessible to his Ministers, and that, if the Socialist party were in power, he would be surrounded by the Ministers of that party, as was the case—

Sir S. CRIPPS: I am coming to deal with what happened when the Labour party were in power, if the hon. Gentleman will wait. At the moment I was pointing out that the present standards obviously do not permit free contact with the working-class part of the population, as they do with that part of the population which has the necessary means to

compete in the performances which take place at that standard. It is true that what has been so accurately described as the aristocratic embrace will, no doubt, from time to time and on convenient occasions, be extended to draw choice specimens from the workers' ranks into an artificial and temporary association with those self-styled superior beings who constitute society, a sort of mariage de convenance, which is dissolved when its unpleasantness is no longer necessitated by political considerations. but both the normal expense and the exotic atmosphere of the Court make it quite impossible for any ordinary man in the street himself to be in, or to participate in, the life of the Court circle. Not even the noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) will deny that proposition, as the great expert in the aristocratic embrace.

Viscountess ASTOR: May I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman two questions, the answers to which he, as a K. C., ought to know? [Interruption.] Silence, among the comrades. When the hon. and learned Gentleman talks about aristocrats, does he not know that, from the foreign point of view, there is not what you call an aristocracy in England? Aristocrats come from the ordinary people. He is an aristocrat, if ever there was one. They are just ordinary people, and he knows that is so. You find that in the House of Lords, if you go two generations back. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman think that what he calls the aristocracy walk in and out of Court circles just because they are well-dressed and can afford it? Can he conceive of Court circles having people only for that reason?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne): The Noble Lady appears, in her interruption, to be getting very far away from the Civil List.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I would not attempt to vie with the Noble Lady in regard to what is the foreign notion of British aristocracy. As to her second point, I do not imagine that the people to whom she refers walk in and out of the Court, but I imagine that the Court is the centre around which they radiate. I was emphasising that the great expenditure, of which this large Civil List is symptomatic,


creates at the present time the wall around the Throne within which class privilege delights to enjoy itself, and in one of its most obnoxious forms. By large Civil Lists we encourage the creation of these surroundings for the Crown that I believe to be so dangerous to the survival of true democracy within this country. It may be argued—I say this in reply to the hon. Member for Rusholme (Mr. Radford) who interrupted—that the experience of the two Labour Governments has shown that it is not impossible for the present system of Court society to continue side by side with a truly democratic Government. No one wishes to deny the concessions that were made to the poverty of the representatives of the lower classes during that period, but they were concessions, and they did little or nothing, in. my opinion, to counteract the imminent dangers to democratic government which arise from the present structure of Court society. I arm certain that all those who have not since suffered from the strangulation of the aristrocratic embrace experienced during that period, must be firmly of opinion that such a state of affairs could not possibly be continued under any future Labour Government.
It is not a question of concession or toleration of the incursion of a lower class into the select and privileged area of a Court; it should be a question of the right of access, and the setting up of conditions in which that access can be a normal and ordinary event. If the Crown is to be, or to appear to be, impartial to all classes of society, it is impossible that it should remain ringed round with the present fence of privilege and wealth, which makes it quite impossible in practice for there to be any general measure of social contact with the masses and with their representatives. I believe that the constitutional monarchy can only continue to exist as a form of government as long as it adjusts itself to the changed circumstances of social and political development. Today a working-class party is the Opposition And the alternative Government, and the Court can no longer be allowed to exist as the privilege and the hobby of a few select families or a, wealthy clique of vested interests—the very thing which is encouraged by this large Civil List which is being voted to-day. If it

does so continue to exist, it will spell the end of monarchy, for the Monarch will become identified with the extravagance and exclusiveness of those who surround him, and the people, in their desire to sweep away the latter, will demolish the whole structure, and the monarchy will disappear together with all those unworthy adherents who surround it to-day.
This Civil List is designed on the basis of continuing a form of social structure at the pinnacle of our national life which has no possible relationship to-day to the problems and necessities of that life, and on a basis which, I strongly suspect, is wanted neither by the Monarch nor his family. It is, indeed, a sort of false facade of luxury behind which the masses in the country continue in their poverty, and we shall be well advised, if we desire democracy to continue in this country—and I understand that to be the desire of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite—to demolish this false facade, with all its tawdry and out-of-date ornaments, and build in its place an honest and dignified elevation which matches the reality of the architecture of our national life. After all, in America today every man feels that he is equal of the President, and yet he pays him proper respect and honours him; and the President does not receive a sum of two million dollars a year for his Civil List. So, here, no man ought to feel himself repulsed by the surroundings of the Monarch; and, if such an attitude and outlook were adopted in this country as I believe to be consistent with the present stage of development here, it would certainly fit in with the circumstances of our national life far more truly than that which exists to-day can ever do; and, also, there would then be no need to vote these very large sums for the purposes of the Civil List.
The belief in the Divine right, of kings has long ago passed away. The Monarch rules to-day because the people wish it, and it is essential that his office should accommodate itself the changing times, in which, to-day, the working class form an important portion of our society, just as important as any other class. I should, therefore, like to see these sums reduced, as an indication that this snobbish exclusiveness of the Court circle is to be swept au ay, with all its extravagance and waste and all its


dangers to the continuance of democratic Government in this country.

8.21 p.m.

Mr. LEWIS: Most of us regard the possession of a constitutional monarchy as something in itself so precious that its worth cannot be assessed in terms of pounds, shillings and pence. We are, therefore, prepared to grant, and to grant cheerfully, such sums as can be shown to be reasonably necessary to maintain that monarchy in a state of dignity consistent with the greatness of the State of which it is the head It appears from the Debate this afternoon that there are three of four Members of this House who do not share that view. It has been suggested to us that a monarchy is not a suitable form of Government for this country, and it has been suggested, further, that it is a great extravagance. I do not propose to pursue the question whether the monarchy is a suitable form of government for this country or not, as it seems to me to be much too wide to be discussed on the matter before us; but I would like to reply to the suggestion that it is a great extravagance.
It is not of the slightest use for the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) to come here and compare, as he did this afternoon, the income of the head of the State with the income of an unemployed man. That may be very effective at a street corner, but it will not cut any ice in the House of Commons, and for this reason, that it has nothing whatever to do with the subject under discussion. If the hon. Member desires to show that the monarchy in this country is an extravagance, he must support his argument by comparing its cost with that of any possible alternative. It so happens that we can make a very simple comparison. We have had urged upon us once or twice this afternoon the merits of republics. There is a great Republic on the other side of the Atlantic, the United States of America. The United States have a President, and it may surprise some of those hon. Members who have spoken this afternoon to point out to them that the cost, direct and indirect, to the United States of their President, is far greater than the cost of our Monarch to this country.
It is quite true that, if you have an ancient monarchy like ours, there results

a certain amount of pomp and ceremony, which costs money, and that a republic can dispense with that, and that money can be saved. But is that a true comparison? You have to set against that the fact that, where there is a President, he requires to be elected, and these periodical elections are extremely costly to the State. Some very interesting figures were given recently by Professor W. F. Ogburn, of the University of Chicago, who made a very careful comparison of the trade of the United States from 1868 to 1932, a period which covered 17 presidential elections. He showed, as the result of his calculations, that the average effect of a presidential election in the United States in any year was to reduce the sum total of the trade of the United States by 4 per cent. I have not the figures before me of the total trade of the United States but it will be immediately obvious that 4 per cent. of that amount is something altogether greater than the total cost that we are asked to agree to now. I hope, if we are to have further criticism of these proposals, that it will be honest and that comparison will be made between the cost of these proposals and the cost of any possible alternative.

8.26 p.m.

Mr. GALLACHER: I rise as an apostle of economy, but economy at the top this time instead of the favourite pastime of hon. Members opposite, economy at the bottom. I am not quick enough in regard to the material that is coming before the House or I would have been responsible for putting down an Amendment to wipe out the whole amount if such an Amendment had been admitted. If I were allowed to move such an Amendment, I would certainly put it forward. I want to present myself here as one who, as distinct from hon. Members opposite, is absolutely loyal to my class. The one thing that especially characterises hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite is disloyalty. I do not want any hon. Member opposite to try to get me or anyone else to believe that there is anything in the nature of loyalty in connection with the Civil List. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) says that the monarchy exists because the people wish it. He is wrong. When he says that, he smashes every argument that he has


been making before. The monarchy exists because for the time being it is useful to the capitalist class. I have here a song sheet that we were using on May Day. There is a verse that starts:
Kings, hirelings and War Lords have long held their sway.
This was written by one who for long was a Member of the House, James Keir Hardie. Thirty years ago he wrote it, when Labouchers in "Truth" was exposing the scandals and extravagance of the Court and when "Reynold's Newspaper" was the medicine of robust republicanism. But during the past twenty-five years a change has taken place. The capitalist class have seen that the monarchy might be used as a centre for reaction and for maintaining their power. The hon. and learned Gentleman says that, if this aristocratic circle is maintained, the masses will rise and overthrow the monarchy. Neither he nor anyone else present here can give me a case where the masses have overthrown the monarchy but, when the masses get into motion—and they are getting into motion in this country—in every case the capitalist class sacrifices the monarchy in order to try to save themselves. I do not care what country it is, whenever the masses begin to move and begin to threaten the property interests of the capitalist class, out goes the monarchy.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: We are not discussing the advisability, or otherwise, of a monarchy. The only point before the Committee is whether the provision made is suitable or not.

Mr. GALLACHER: I want to make it clear that in putting forward such a sum as this there is nothing sincere about it. The only thing that is genuine, is the determination to maintain property and profits. Take the case of the Prime Minister. In the first debate I heard in this House, members opposite vied with each other in declaring their devotion to the Prime Minister. He it was who had made election victory possible; now they are getting ready to throw him out. Loyalty is an unknown quantity. We have seen the Prime Minister's face on all the hoardings. "Now sprawls he there and none so poor as may not kick him."
This may interest the Noble Lady the Member for Sutton (Viscountess Astor),

who is always expressing her keen concern for the women. The Civil List proposes a matter of £30,000 for a hypothetical wife and a considerable sum for the hypothetical children of the hypothetical wife. We had a gentleman who went to South Wales to deal with real and not hypothetical men, women and children, and he decided that seven shillings a day was good enough for a miner and, if he got married, 3d. a day for his wife and, if he had any children, one or a dozen, 3d. a day extra. Yet you are prepared to present this before us. I do not know whether there is the slightest sense of shame that they can come forward with such proposals as these. I remember that on one occasion I happened to be speaking and drawing attention to the fact that certain leaders of the movement on this side of the House were associating with the enemies of the working class, and the present Lord President of the Council offered to take me to Balmoral Castle.

Mr. CRAVEN-ELLIS: Nonsense.

An HON. MEMBER: Give him a chance.

Mr. CRAVEN-ELLIS: I will give him a chance.

Mr. GALLACHER: We know the sort of chance to give him.

Mr. CRAVEN-ELLIS: I am one of those who very willingly contribute.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think that we would get on better without these interruptions.

Mr. GALLACHER: The Lord President of the Council at that time proposed to take me to Balmoral Castle, but he did not take me. Another Member of His Majesty's Government at that time took a hand in that game, and I went to Wandsworth Prison instead. I was still under the care of His Majesty, but I was satisfied that I was in better company than I would have been at Balmoral Castle. We have the s allocation in the Civil List, but we still have the derelict areas, and not a penny of any kind should be spent upon anything that we could do without until the problem of the derelict areas has been solved. Here we have a proposition for £100,000, £30,000 of which is to be put aside for a hypothetical wife,


so much for children and so much for relatives. The other night we discussed in this House the report of another committee which had a surplus of several millions, and right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite were adamant against utilising that money to raise the benefit of an unemployed man from 17s. to 18s. a week. Let anyone here go anywhere in the country, and in view of the treatment of the unemployed, and the derelict areas and in view of the existence of poverty and malnutrition, justify such an unspeakable expenditure as this. I will go to any part of the country with any hon. or right hon. Member—

Mr. CRAVEN-ELLIS: Will the hon. Member come to my constituency?

Mr. GALLACHER: —and will prove that the capitalist class have never at any time been loyal to anything but property and profits, and that when property and profits are taken, they will sacrifice a Prime Minister or a Monarchy, or all and sundry, in order to regain them. They are destroying men and women in this country, and I protest against any expenditure of this kind when men, women and children are going short of food.

8.39 p.m.

Sir EDWARD CAMPBELL: I have listened to the speech of the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) and to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), who, if nobody else, ought to know a great deal better than what he told us to-night. He is what I call a silver-tongued revolutionary. It is by that kind of speech in the various constituencies that he gets all kinds of less intelligent people than himself to believe that what he is saying is the truth. I think that he is an ignorant man if he thinks that what he has told us to-night is in fact the opinion of even the people whom he described as the aristocratic class. I happen to have been a, British Consul in the Far East for 20 years, and during that time it was my pleasure and my duty to serve this country to the best of my ability. We Britishers who, for one reason or another, happened to be in this foreign Colony always appreciated meeting each other and talking of the old country. We all looked back upon this country and the things that were going on with the

greatest of interest. There was no question of class. The hon. Member for West Fife has told us that he represents a class. In my constituency I represent all classes.

Mr. MAXTON: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the Committee how he is going to connect his very interesting reminiscences in the Dutch East Indies with the Civil List Vote?

Sir E. CAMPBELL: I shall connect them in my own way. The hon. Member occupies the Floor of the Chamber a good deal more than I do, and now that I have the privilege of speaking I intend to make my speech in exactly the manner that I desire.

Mr. MAXTON: It is perhaps the greater frequency with which I am called which enables me to deal with the matters before the Committee not as I please, but as the Chairman decides.

Sir E. CAMPBELL: I appreciate that fact, but I stayed here until 10 o'clock in the morning on one occasion when the hon. Gentleman was, from time to time, probably every half hour, called to order for not being relevant. He will probably recall the occasion when that took place. I was about to say that during all the time that I was abroad we looked to this country and especially to the Monarchy. We had our daily papers, and I do not think that, during the 20 years I was out there, I took a great deal of interest in the political speeches delivered in this House, nor did I read what comrades or colleagues, as they were called, were saying. But I did read what the Royal Family were doing. That is the link which binds the whole Empire together. Last year I had the pleasure of going round the world, and at every place to which I came I found bands of Britishers who were loyal to the Crown and whose great idea was to come home for the Jubilee.

Mr. HARDIE: Hear, hear.

Sir E. CAMPBELL: Of course, a man who makes a speech like that of the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie) is idiotic enough to jeer. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] We listened very attentively to the things which he said, and which I can assure him, whether he believes it or not, hurt many of us very much indeed.

Mr. HARDIE: I am very glad to hear that it is possible to penetrate to the bone through some of your hides.

Sir E. CAMPBELL: Although I was 20 years out of the country, I am just as loyal as anybody else. The money which is being voted to-night is, in my opinion, fully justified. The loyalty of the people of all classes in this country to the Throne is undoubted, and they show this by the way in which they appreciate Royal processions. Although they may not have the entree, as the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol has said, into Royal or aristocratic circles they are enthusiastically loyal. The hon. and learned Member knows more about aristocratic circles than I do because he has a better right of entry, but, although this may be a small circle, the people, the millions, who are outside the circle are just as loyal as those within it. I think it is a pity that a man of his learning and knowledge should get up in this House and talk, I was going to say the rot but the kind of stuff he talked this evening. He knows that there are ignorant people who think that what the hon. and learned Gentleman says must be the truth. I suggest that it is very far from the truth.

8.47 p.m.

Mr. MacLAREN: When the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) was speaking I intervened to say that Parliament was not giving the King anything at all. I do not wish the hon. Member and his colleagues to misunderstand me. I cannot really get into harmony with the discussion so far as it has gone. I listened with interest to the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) and I agree with almost every word lie said, and I think that when his speech is read in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow it should have a salutary effect upon those who are disposed to be sycophants and lackeys. The King himself resents such persons. But I do not appreciate the relevance of what the hon. and learned Member said with regard to the Vote under discussion. The main point before us is that His Majesty the King is the owner of a vast amount of land and if he held on to his land he would be a much wealthier man than he will be if this Vote is passed by the Committee.
In a debate of this kind there is every opportunity for extremists' sloppy sentimentalities, against which every intelligent person must be on his guard. The King is asking for a Vote which will decide his salary for the years to come. I am not taking any sides on this matter, but what is happening is that certain people think this is a glorious opportunity to speak for an hour or two hours in order to make it clear to the people outside that they are identified with the interests of the working classes. That is cheap, it is mean, and it is contemptible. If His Majesty the King were to retain his ownership of land he would be a much wealthier man than this House proposes to make him by this Vote. Comparisons are sometimes odious. but I know of landholders who are wealthier than the King—who could buy him out. They are not doing anything at all for the State, and yet from my hon. Friends on the extreme Left—masters of their fate—not a word comes about the constant pillage by these owners of land in the State. That is allowed to pass, but when the King's salary comes up they think it is easy to make a contrast between the King on his Throne, the vast amount of money given to His Majesty, and the poor unemployed men outside. If they were successful in defeating the Vote is there a man or woman outside or inside the House who believes that it would benefit the unemployed men by a single farthing? Of course is would not.
Let us be quite frank. The discussion so far as it has come from hon. Members of the Left Wing is absurd. They are using the circumstances of this discussion as a stalking horse. One of them said that he was not speaking to the House of Commons but to the street corner. When a certain Vote is under discussion it would be well if hon. Members would apply their minds to the Vote, and more especially to the one which is at present under discussion. It is unique. Whether it is a President or a King who rules a. country we know that poverty and riches are there. The more I see of Presidents and dictators in other countries the less am I enamoured of the so-called democratic choice of other countries. The vote which will be given to-night will be partly handing back to the King that which he could control if he wishes. As to whether we should have a King is a.


matter which can be appropriately discussed on the proper occasion.
May I be allowed to add something which is not quite relevant. I never look on a Royal procession coming to this House for the opening of Parliament but I deeply regret the military glamour of the thing. It would be well if Royalty in this country would identify itself more with the scientific, industrial and artistic activities of the State, instead of having cordons of soldiers, the rattling of sabres, gun-carriages. It would be more in keeping with the nation of Shakespeare if they were surrounded by members of the artistic and educational and craft guilds of the State, instead of a retinue of military, which is quite foreign to the character of the people of this country.

8.55 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I rise to say a word or two on this Vote, as I understand that we are debating the making of a grant for the payment of money by Parliament which will continue for all the years that this King or Monarch should live. The hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) referred to landlords. Unfortunately we are not to-night discussing the landlords of Britain, but if we were I should have something to say about them, their conduct and their incomes. I wish we were discussing all those ramifications. May I, however, say to the hon. Member for Burslem that we have attacked the landlords, both in speech and in literature, both at election times and at non-election times, and we have never been the slightest bit backward in attacking anyone who lives on what we term rent, profit or interest I We have constantly attacked the landlords in that category. I was not surprised by the remarks of the hon. Member for Burslem, because whatever reputation he has made, be it great or small, has come through his not being a Socialist. Although he has been a nominal member of the Socialist party, he has never ceased to say that he is not a Socialist; nor has he ever claimed to be one. It is a very honest position, and one which his party appreciates. He has constantly refused to associate himself with the party and has constantly sneered at Socialist ideas. In so far as he has made a reputation, it is by such attacks. I understand that to-night we are discussing the giving of money to a landlord, who is in addition the King, and I should

have thought that the person who would have led the attack would have been the hon. Member for Burslem, who was a pioneer of the single tax and anti-landlordism. To-night we are discussing a landlord; he may be the King or Monarch, but he is nevertheless a landlord, and unless the hon. Member can differentiate between one landlord and another, I am afraid he has to-night departed from the former faith he held—that of the single tax.
I would like now to discuss the question of sentimentality. It is becoming a. common thing in this House for anyone who rises in his place and makes a defence of the poor people to be told that he is a sentimentalist. We had it the other night from the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) in the discussion on the Budget, when he claimed advantages for certain children under the Income Tax; but when hon. Members on this side make claims for the children of the unemployed they are told that they are sentimentalists. I am often guilty of sentimentality. I hope that Labour Members in this House will never be afraid of sentiment and of stating it. There is nothing to be ashamed of in a love for sentimentality. Indeed the Labour party has built up its power—and this is not to its discredit—largely on sentiment. What has been that sentiment? In local and national elections it has constantly been on the question of the treatment of the rich and of the poor; the building of battleships and the neglect of social services; the handing out of public money to Sir Ernest Gowers and the treatment of the unemployed—I heard a brilliant speech from the hon. Member. for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) on that subject; the treatment of Colonial Governors' pensions and the treatment of the poor people and their pensions—on which there was a speech the other night by the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker). What about the workmen's compensation? That is the sentiment which has built up and made the Labour party.
As the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) said, the money which it is proposed to give to a particular man is given from the land. It is given from the social wealth of the community. Call it what you will, it is created by the labour of the people. That sum of


£110,000 comes from the social wealth of the people and is to be devoted to one particular man. Can he use it? Does he need it? He is one man having only one man's needs—one stomach, one pair of boots, one suit of clothes. I say frankly that if I had a regard for the King I would oppose the granting of this sum, because I believe that the ownership of vast sums of money such as that, is as cruel to the man who owns them as they are to the poor who give them. It gives to him a sense of importance, a sense of power over his fellow human beings, that is neither good for him nor good for the common people. We object to granting this sum. It is a sum which no human being can reasonably use on his needs. It is a sum which no man can spend unless he does one of two things, either does not spend it and places it in savings or uses it in luxuries that are indefensible. Not only do we make that provision of £110,000, but we make provision for every other relative of the King.

Mr. MacLAREN: Why do you not attack Westminster?

Mr. BUCHANAN: We will attack this fellow because that is our job to-night. Let Westminster come on to-morrow and we will attack him as well. Let me say here that we will never do what the hon. Member for Burslem has done; he is an anti-Socialist who joined the Socialist party. He is not sitting on the Liberal benches where he ought to be. Hon. Members may say that to-night we are talking sloppy sentimentalities, but we do draw attention to this contrast because, if my information be correct, we are on the 20th May to discuss the Unemployment Insurance Regulations, and the 1,500,000 human beings affected by them. Then the House will discuss how little they can give and not how much; they will discuss how they can cut down every item. I see that the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. M. Beaumont) is in his place. In the Budget Debate he said that we are spending too much on the social services and that they should be cut down. That was not sloppy sentiment, but an attack on the poor. It is only sentiment when you make a defence of the poor, but attack them on as miserable and niggardly things as you

can, and you are doing a statesmanlike thing.
When a Labour Government occupied those benches opposite, I was told that it was paying all it could afford in pensions and unemployment benefit. In the words of a prominent member of the Labour party "every penny in the till" was being paid out in that way. But at the same time they could afford to pay this sum, which I think is an outrageous sum to pay to one man. You can walk around it as you like and consider it from any point of view. You can tell me, as the right hon. Gentleman who leads the Liberal party told us, about the King's great gifts. Personally, I do not think he has all the gifts he is alleged to have. I read about him going down a mine and knowing all about miners; driving a train and knowing all about railway engines, kicking off at a football match and knowing all about football. To talk about the King in that way to intelligent people is only to lower him in their eyes. He cannot know anything like all that he is supposed to know.
I would say this of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, whatever his future may prove to be, he is one of the ablest men in this House. There is no doubt about his ability, but to say that he has all the virtues and all the capacity would be ridiculous. The hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) is an eminent King's Counsel and has great legal ability but nobody would claim for him a tremendous all-round ability, which he does not possess. It is nonsense to claim for this man that he is good at this and good at that, when everybody knows it is not the case. I understand that the Monarchy has, of recent years, improved out of all knowledge. I am told that in the old days the Liberals, led by Sir Charles Dilke, were republicans and at one time, round about 1910, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas) voted in this House to have this salary reduced by £25,000. [An HON. MEMBER: "He did not know the King then!"] Possibly he did not. Then the right hon. Gentleman who was Prime Minister and is now Lord President of the Council voted for £25,000, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith), who was Minister of Education in the Labour Government,


also voted for it. He was a Liberal then but since he has gone from Liberalism to Socialism he has advanced from £25,000 to £109,000. The Labour party of those days composed almost exclusively of trade unionists—men like David Shackleton, George Barnes and Arch—every one of them voted for £25,000 in 1910. [HON. MEMBERS: "Trade union rate !"] It may have been the trade union rate but it was more than ample.
Let us look at the realities. Could any man go down and defend this proposal in the constituencies which we represent to-day—and despite all the opposition of the Labour party and of the National Government we held our seats? We may be right or we may be wrong, but at least we represent the people of our divisions. On that there can be no challenge. Does the hon. Member for East Stirling (Mr. Weir) challenge it?

Mr. MacNEILL WEIR: I did not challenge it.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I say we represent our divisions despite the determined opposition of the hon. Member and the whole of his party, and despite occasional things similar to that for which he apologised yesterday, used against us. He was only caught yesterday. He has a record in that unequalled in this House—

Mr. LOGAN: When the hon. Member says "the whole of the party," does he intend to include myself and other hon. Members?

Mr. BUCHANAN: I did not mean that; I only meant the Scottish party.

Mr. EDE: But the hon. Member who interrupts is the hon. Member for the Scotland division.

Mr. WEIR: May I say that I did not interrupt the hon. Member at all? He attributed to me an interruption by somebody else.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Then in the same generous way as the hon. Member apologised yesterday, I apologise to him now. But to return to what I was saying we do represent our divisions and I have to go down there to see teeming thousands of people living in overcrowded conditions on incomes that are outrageous. When we talk about brave

people let us think of the treatment we are giving to men who risked their lives in the War and men whose sons were killed in the War. We insist on counting every penny piece of pension that a widow gets in order to make her live on as little as possible. [An HON. MEMBER: "We all know it."] I do not think the hon. Member does know. I do not think that some hon. Members know anything about it. But to-night they could not go down to any great industrial centre and defend this proposal. I was speaking to the junior Member for Dundee (Mr. Dingle Foot) and what do I find that he was charged with at the last Election? He was hunted round about Dundee by his opponents—and they were not Communists at the last Election—and he was challenged to say why he was in favour of granting all this money to the King while the poor were being treated as they are being treated. That has been an issue in every place. We will vote against this proposal and every proposal of the kind, because we believe that the voting of this money is wrong and indefensible. It is socially wrong, and we propose to take every step to oppose this and similar grants.

9.14 p.m.

Mr. MICHAEL BEAUMONT: For some reason which I find it difficult to understand the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) launched an attack on me with reference to my speech on the Budget Resolutions. Had the hon. Member done me the honour of listening to that speech—

Mr. BUCHANAN: I did.

Mr. BEAUMONT: Had he listened to it with attention—and I see no reason why he should not have done so—he would have known that, whatever else I said, I did not say what he attributed to me. My plea on that occasion, for better or for worse, was not that money should be taken from the poor but that it should be distributed to them differently. I think from what I heard that the rest of the hon. Member's speech was as inaccurate and as inconsequent as his reference to myself.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I beg to move, in line 5, to leave out "£410,000," and to insert "£409,000."
I formally move this Amendment for a token reduction, for the reasons which I have already explained in the general Debate.

Question put, "That '£410,000' stand part of the Question."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 238; Noes, 102.

Division No. 163.]
AYES
[9.15 p.m,


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Entwistle, C. F.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Mitcheson, Sir G. G.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Everard, W. L.
Moreing, A. C.


Albery, I. J.
Fildes, Sir H.
Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.)


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Fleming, E. L.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Foot, D. M.
Morrison, G A. (Scottish Univ's.)


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Furness, S. N.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.


Apsley, Lord
Ganzoni, Sir J.
Munro, P.


Aske, Sir R. W.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Nall, Sir J.


Astor, Visc'tess (Plymouth, Sutton)
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H. H.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Gluckstein, L. H.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Goldie, N. B.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G.


Balniel, Lord
Goodman, Col. A. W.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Gower, Sir R. V.
Owen, Major G.


Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Palmer, G. E. H.


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J
Peat, C. U.


Bird, Sir R. B.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Penny, Sir G.


Blaker, Sir R.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Petherick, M.


Blindell, Sir J.
Grimston, R. V.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Bossom, A. C.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Porritt, R. W.


Boulton, W. W.
Guest, Maj. Hon. O.(C'mb'rw'll, N. W.)
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Procter, Major H. A.


Brass, Sir W.
Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Radford, E. A.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Guy, J. C. M.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Hamilton, Sir G. C.
Ramsden, Sir E.


Brown, Brig.-Gen, H. C. (Newbury)
Hanbury, Sir C.
Rankin, R.


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Hannah, I. C.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Burghley, Lord
Harbord, A.
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)


Burgln, Dr. E. L.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Burton, Col. H. W.
Heligers, Captain F. F. A.
Remer, J. R.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Carver, Major W. H.
Hepworth, J.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Cary, R. A.
Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Castlereagh, Viscount
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Ropner, Colonel L.


Cautley, Sir H. S.
Herbert, Captain S. (Abbey)
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (L'derry)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Holdsworth, H.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Holmes, J. S.
Rothschild, J. A. de


Channon, H.
Hope, Captain Hon. A O. J.
Rowlands, G.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Hopkinson, A.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Christie, J. A.
Hore-Bellsha. Rt. Hon. L
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J.
Hulbert, N. J.
Salmon, Sir I.


Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Hunter, T.
Salt, E. W.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
James, Wing-Commander A. W.
Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)


Cooper, Rt. Hon. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Jones, H. Haydn (Merloneth)
Sandys, E. D.


Craven-Ellis, W.
Jones, L. (Swansea, W.)
Scott, Lord William


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Seely, Sir H. M.


Crooke, J. S.
Kerr, J. G. (Scottish Universities)
Selley, H. R.


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Kimball, L.
Shakespeare. G. H.


Cross, R. H.
Kirkpatrick, W. M.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Fortar)


Cruddas, Col. B.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Latham, Sir P.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovil)
Leckie, J. A.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Dawson, Sir P.
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Denville, Alfred
Lewis, O.
Smithers, Sir W.


Despencer Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Liddall, W. S.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Dodd, J. S.
Lindsay, K. M.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden E.)


Donner, P. W.
Lleweilln, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Spender-Clay Lt,-Cl. Rt. Hn. H. H.


Dower, Capt. A. V. G.
Loftus, P. C.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Drewe, C.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Scot. U.)
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Duggan, H, J.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Duncan, J. A. L.
Magnay, T.
Sutcliffe, H


Dunglass, Lord
Maitland, A.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Eastwood, J. F.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Thomas. Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Eckersley, P. T.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Markham, S. F.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Ellis, Sir G.
Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.
Touche, G. C.


Elmiey, Viscount
Maxwell, S. A.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Emery, J. F.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.




Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.
Wells, S. R.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Wakefield, W. W.
White, H. Graham



Walker-Smith, Sir J.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Ward, Irene (Wallsend)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.
Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert


Waterhouse, Captain C.
Womersley, Sir W. J.
Ward and Commander Southby.


Wayland, Sir W. A.
Wragg, H.





NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Oliver, G. H.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Paling, W.


Adamson, W. M.
Hardie, G. D.
Parkinson, J. A.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Potts, J.


Banfield, J. W.
Hicks, E. G.
Price, M. P.


Batey, J.
Hopkin, D.
Pritt, D. N.


Bellenger, F.
Jagger, J.
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Benson, G.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Ritson, J.


Bevan, A.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)


Broad, F. A.
John, W.
Rowson, G.


Bromfield, W.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Sexton, T. M.


Brooke, W.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Short, A.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Simpson, F. B.


Buchanan, G.
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Burke, W. A.
Kennedy. Rt. Hon. T.
Stephen, C.


Cape, T.
Lawson, J. J.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Compton, J.
Leach, W.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Lee, F.
Thorne, W.


Daggar, G.
Leonard, W.
Thurtle, E.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Logan, D. G.
Tinker, J. J.


Day, H.
Lunn, W.
Viant, S. P.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Walkden, A. G.


Ede, J. C.
McGhee, H. G.
Walker, J.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
McGovern, J.
Watkins, F. C.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
MacLaren, A.
Watson, W. McL.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
MacNeill, Weir, L.
Westwood, J.


Frankel, D.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Gallacher, W.
Markiew, E.
Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)


Gardner, B. W.
Marshall, F.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Garro-Jones, G. M.
Mathers, G.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Maxton, J.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Green. W. H. (Deptford)
Messer, F.



Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES —


Griffiths, J. (Llaneily)
Muff, G.
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Charleton.

9.25 p.m.

Mr. STEPHEN: I beg to move, to leave out lines 22 to 38.
If hon. Members will look at the Resolution they will see that these lines are those which make provision for His Royal Highness the Duke of York, Her Royal Highness the Duchess of York and their children. I do not propose to go over all the arguments that have been put in connection with the general question. What was said with regard to the provision for the King applies no less to the provision for the Duke of York. It cannot be said that as the Duke of York has become Heir Presumptive his needs have in any way increased. It is wrong for this House to vote away these vast sums of money for people in that position. It has already been pointed out that these positions are mainly decorative, and have none of the responsibilities of the head of the Government, and yet these large sums of money are being spent on them. Along with members of my party I feel strongly on this subject, and I have

great pleasure in moving the deletion of these lines in order that no additional provision should be made for the Duke of York. More than adequate provision was made in the Civil List of 1910, and I hope that hon. Members will vote with us against this extravagance and this unjust addition to the burdens of the common people.

9.27 p.m.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member has made it clear that he moves this Amendment as part of the general line that he and his friends are taking on the whole question of the Civil List. It is, therefore, perhaps not necessary to look closely into the effect of this particular Amendment. I would like to make one observation on a remark of his, that the position of the Duke of York as Heir Presumptive did not justify any addition to the annuity already provided for him. That statement cannot be substantiated. As Heir Presumptive, the Duke of York, in effect, holds the same position as the Prince of Wales held, and the same duties are expected of him. He cannot be Prince


of Wales himself, but he occupies the position that would be occupied by a Prince of Wales if there were one. Something more is expected of the Prince of Wales than is expected of other members of His Majesty's family, and in the circumstances it is only reasonable that, as he is not Prince of Wales and cannot enjoy the revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall, this modest addition should be made

to the annuity already given him to enable him to maintain the state and functions which he would have to carry if he were Prince of Wales.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 261; Noes, 22.

Division No. 164.]
AYES
[9.30 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Dower, Capt. A. V. G.
John, W.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Drewe, C.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Duggan, H. J.
Jones, L. (Swansea, W.)


Albery, I. J.
Duncan, J. A. L.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Dunglass, Lord
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Eastwood, J. F.
Kerr, J. C. (Scottish Universities)


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Eckersley, P. T.
Kimball, L.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Ede, J. C.
Lamb, Sir J. O.


Apsley, Lord
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Latham, Sir P.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Leckie, J. A.


Astor, Visc'tess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Ellis, Sir G.
Lee, F.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Elmley, Viscount
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Emery, J. F.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Entwistie, C. F.
Lewis, O.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Liddall, W. S.


Balniel, Lord
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Lindsay, K. M.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Everard, W. L.
Liewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.


Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)
Fildes, Sir H.
Loftus, P. C.


Benson, G.
Fleming, E. L.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Foot, D. M.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)


Bird, Sir R. B.
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
MacDonald. Rt. Hn. J. R. (Scot. U.)


Blaker, Sir R.
Furness, S. N.
MacDonald. Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)


Blindell, Sir J.
Ganzoni, Sir J.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)


Bossom, A. C.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
McKie, J. H.


Boulton, W. W.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Magnay, T


Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.
Glucksteln, L. H.
Maitland, A.


Brass, Sir W.
Goldie, N. B.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Goodman, Cot, A. W.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Gower, Sir R. V.
Markham, S. F.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.


Browne, A. C. (Balfast, W.)
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Maxwell, S. A.


Burghley, Lord
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)


Burton, Col. H. W.
Grimston, R. V.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Mitcheson, Sir G. G.


Carver, Major W. H.
Guest, Hon. J. (Brecon and Radnor)
Moreing, A. C.


Cary, R. A.
Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N. W.)
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)


Castlereagh, Viscount
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Morrison. W. S. (Cirencester)


Cautley, Sir H. S.
Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col, A. J.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Guy, J. C. M.
Munro, P.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Hamilton, Sir G. C.
Nail, Sir J.


Channon, H.
Hanbury, Sir C.
Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H. H.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Hannah, I. C.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.


Christie, J. A.
Harbord, A.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Harris, Sir P. A.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G.


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Hartington, Marquess of
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J.
Heligers, Captain F. F. A.
Owen, Major G.


Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P
Palmer, G. E. H.


Cooke. J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Peat, C. U.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Hepworth, J.
Penny, Sir G.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)
Petherick, M.


Craven-Ellis, W.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Herbert, Captain S. (Abbey)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Crooke, J. S.
Holdsworth, H.
Plugge, L. F.


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Holmes, J. S.
Porritt, R. W.


Cross, R. H.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Potts, J.


Cruddas, Col. B.
Hopkin, D.
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Davidson, Rt. Hon. Sir J. C. C.
Hopkinson, A.
Price, M. P.


Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovil)
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.
Procter, Major H. A.


Dawson, Sir P.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Radford, E. A.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Ramsden, Sir E.


Denville, Alfred
Hulbert, N. J.
Rankin, R.


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Hunter, T.
Rathbone, J. R (Bodmin)


Dodd, J. S.
James, Wing-Commander, A. W.
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)


Donner, P. W.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)




Remer, J. R.
Short, A.
Touche, G. C.


Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Simpson, F. B.
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.


Ropner, Colonel L.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.
Wakefield, W. W.


Ross, Major Sir R. D. (L'derry)
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)
Walkden, A. G.


Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Rothschild, J. A. de
Smithers, Sir W.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Rowlands, G.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)
Ward, Irene (Wallsend)


Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, E.)
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)
Spender-Clay, Lt.-Cl. Rt. Hn. H. H.
Wayland, Sir W. A.


Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Stourton, Hon. J. J.
Wells, S. R.


Salmon, Sir I.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)
White, H. Graham


Salt, E. W.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)
Strickland, Captain W. F.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Sanderson, Sir F. B.
Stuart. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Sandys, E. D.
Sutcliffe, H.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Scott, Lord William
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Wragg, H.


Seely, Sir H. M.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Selley, H. R.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)



Shakespeare, G. H.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES —


Shaw, Captain W. T. (Fortar)
Tinker, J. J.
Commander Southby and Dr. Morris-Jones.




NOES.


Bevan, A.
Kelly, W. T.
Pritt, D. N.


Brooke, W.
Leonard, W.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Daggar, G.
Logan, D. G.
Stephen, C.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
MacLaren, A.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
MacNeill, Weir, L.
Westwood, J.


Gallacher, W.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Griffiths, J (Llanelly)
Marklew, E.



Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Maxton, J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—




Mr. Buchanan and Mr. McGovern.

9.40 p.m.

Mr. STEPHEN: I beg to move, to leave out lines 39 to 52.
The effect of this Amendment would be to make no provision for the hypothetical widow of his present Majesty. It is proposed to make a provision of £70,000, in the event of His Majesty marrying, for Her Majesty the Queen in the event of her surviving His Majesty. So this is really the widow's pension for the hypothetical wife of his present Majesty. I wish to say that in moving this Amendment I do so with pleasure, because since coming back to this House I have pressed upon the Government the need for the improvement of the present system of widows' pensions, and I have not received the slightest sympathy from any Member of the Government to whom I have addressed questions on the subject; yet in spite of the miserable allowance of 10s. a week to all those thousands of other widows in the country, we are being asked to vote £70,000 for this hypothetical widow, and I certainly will not be a party to such a proceeding.

9.42 p.m.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think the description of the effect of the Amendment which has been given by the hon. Member will be sufficient to condemn it

in the eyes of the majority of the Committee. The effect of it really does not stop at the annuity to the Queen if she should survive her husband. It would also destroy the provision that would otherwise be made for the sons and daughters of His Majesty other than the eldest son.

9.43 p.m.

Miss WILKINSON: Would it not be better to wait at least until we have some widows and sons and daughters for whom to make provision? What is the point of bringing forward this proposal now? It is bad enough to have to provide these enormous sums when we are told that they are necessary, but how on earth can anybody explain that it is necessary to provide for a lady who, as far as we know, does not exist, and for children who certainly do not exist. It does seem to me to be asking a great deal of this Committee. Parliament has never refused to make provision for the Royal Family when there is any necessity to do so, but not even the Chancellor can suggest that there is any particular necessity to provide for a contingency which so far has not arisen. I suggest that for the sake of His Majesty it would be very much better to withdraw this part of the proposal. I cannot think that the King will be particularly pleased to


find this sort of thing being discussed. I should have thought it would have been more delicate, from the point of view of His Majesty, to have waited until there was some necessity to make this provision.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think the hon. Lady might well have addressed her questions to her own leader and other members of her party. Of course, the answer to the question is very simple. We make provision at the beginning of the reign for all the contingencies, in connection with the Civil List, which might occur in the course of the reign. We do not propose to wait until the contingencies

arise and then make provision for them; we make provision for them at once. If they never do arise, no money will have been provided, but if they should arise, there is provision for them.

9.46 p.m.

Mr. GALLACHER: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the propaganda that can be made out of such a proposition as this, and that we will make the very most of it?

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 278; Noes, 17.

Division No. 165.]
AYES
[9.45 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Craven-Ellis, W.
Guest, Maj. Hon. O.(C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Guinness, T. L. E. B.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Crooke, J. S.
Gunston, Capt. D. W.


Albery, I. J.
Crookehank, Capt. H. F. C.
Guy, J. C. M.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Hamilton, Sir G. C.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Cross, R. H.
Hanbury, Sir C.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Cruddas, Col. B.
Hannah, I. C


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Davidson, Rt. Hon. Sir J. C. C.
Harbord, A.


Apsley, Lord
Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovil)
Harris, Sir P. A.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Dawson, Sir P.
Hartington, Marquess of


Astor, Visc'tess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Day, H.
Heligers, Captain F. F. A.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Heneage, Lteut.-Colonel A. P.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Denville, Alfred
Hepburn, P G. T. Buchan-


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Hepworth, J.


Balniel, Lord
Dodd, J. S.
Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Donner, P. W.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)


Beaumont. M. W. (Aylesbury)
Dower, Capt. A. V. G.
Herbert, Captain S. (Abbey)


Benson. G.
Drewe, C.
Holdsworth, H.


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Holmes. J. S.


Bird. Sir R. B.
Duggan, H. J.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.


Blaker. Sir R.
Duncan, J. A. L.
Hopkin. D.


Blindell, Sir J.
Dunglass, Lord
Hopkinson. A.


Bossom, A. C.
Dunne, P. R. R.
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.


Boulton, W. W.
Eastwood, J. F.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E.W.
Eckersley, P. T.
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)


Brass, Sir W.
Ede, J. C.
Hulbert, N. J.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Hunter, T.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
James. Wing-Commander A. W.


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Ellis, Sir G.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Eimley, Viscount
John, W.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Emery, J. F.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Entwistle, C. F.
Jones, H. Haydn (Merloneth)


Bull, B. B.
Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Jones, L. (Swansea, W.)


Burghley, Lord
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Keeling, E. H.


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Everard, W. L.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)


Burton, Col. H. W.
Fildes, Sir H.
Kerr, J. Graharn (Scottish Univs.)


Butler, R. A.
Fleming, E. L.
Kimball, L.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Foot, D. M.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.


Carver, Major W. H.
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Latham, Sir P.


Cary, R. A.
Furness, S. N.
Leckie, J. A.


Castlereagh, Viscount
Ganzoni, Sir J.
Lee, F.


Cautley, Sir H. S.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Leech, Dr. J W.


Cazaiet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Gluckstein, L. H.
Lewis, O.


Channon, H.
Goldie, N. B.
Liddall, W. S.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Goodman, Col. A. W.
Lindsay, K. M.


Christie, J. A.
Gower, Sir R. V.
Liewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Loftus, P. C.


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.


Colman, N. C. D.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)


Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
MacDonald, Rt. tin. J. R. (Scot. U.)


Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Grimston, R. V.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)


Cooper, Rt. Hon. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Groves, T. E.
McKie, J. H.




Magnay, T.
Ramsden, Sir E.
Spender-Clay Lt.-Cl. Rt. Hn. H. H.


Maitland, A.
Rankin, R.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Stourton, Hon. J. J.


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon H. D. R.
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Markham, S. F.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Srauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.
Remer, J. R.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Maxwell, S. A.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)
Sutcliffe, H.


Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Mitcheson, Sir G. G.
Ropner, Colonel L.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (L'nderry)
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)
Rothschild, J. A. de
Tinker, J. J.


Muff, G.
Rowlands, G.
Touche, G. C.


Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Munro, P.
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)
Tryon, Major Rt Hon. G. C.


Nail, Sir J.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.


Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H. H.
Salmon, Sir I.
Wakefield, W. W.


O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Salt, E. W.
Walkden, A. G.


O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Sandys, E. D.
Ward, Irene (Wallsend)


Owen, Major G.
Savery, Servington
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Palmer, G. E. H.
Scott, Lord William
Wayland, Sir W. A.


Peat, C. U.
Seely, Sir H. M.
Wells, S. R.


Penny, Sir G.
Selley, H. R.
White, H. Graham


Petherick, M.
Shakespeare, G. H.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Short. A.
Windsor-Clive Lieut.-Colonel G.


Plugge, L. F.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Porritt, R. W.
Simpson, F. B.
Wragg, H.


Potts, J.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Pownall, Sir Assheton
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Price, M. P.
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)



Procter, Major H. A.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Radford, E. A.
Smithers, Sir W.
Commander Southby and Dr.


Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)
Morris-Jones.


Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, E.)





NOES.


Bevan, A.
MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Daggar, G.
Malnwaring, W. H.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Markiew, E.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Gallacher, W.
Maxton, J.



Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Pritt, D. N.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—


Kelly, W. T.
Smith, E. (Stoke)
Mr. Buchanan and Mr. McGovern.


Leonard, W.
Stephen, C.

Main Question put.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 284; Noes, 17.

Division No. 166.]
AYES
[9.58 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Crooke, J. S.


Aciand-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.


Adamson, W. M.
Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Croom-Johnson, R. P.


Aibery, I. J.
Bull, B. B.
Cross, R. H.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B. kn'hd)
Burghley, Lord
Cruddas, Col. B.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Davidson, Rt. Hon. Sir J. C. C.


Anderson Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Burton, Col. H. W.
Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovil)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Butler, R. A.
Dawson, Sir P.


Apsley, Lord
Campbell, Sir E. T.
Day, H.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Carver, Major W. H.
Denman, Hon. R. D.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Cary, R. A.
Denville, Alfred


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Castlereagh, Viscount
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Cautley, Sir H. S.
Dodd, J. S.


Bainiel, Lord
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Donner, P. W.


Bonfield, J. W.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Dower, Capt. A. V. G.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Channon, H.
Drewe, C.


Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)
Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)


Benson. G.
Christie, J. A.
Duggan, H. J.


Birchall. Sir J. D.
Clarry, Sir Reginald
Duncan, J. A. L.


Bird, Sir R. B.
Clydesdale, Marquess of
Dunglass. Lord


Blaker, Sir R.
Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir G. P.
Dunne, P. R. R.


Blindell, Sir J.
Colman, N. C. D.
Eastwood, J. F.


Bossom, A. C.
Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J.
Eckersley, P. T.


Boulton, W. W.
Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Ede, J. C.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwelity)


Brass, Sir W.
Cooper, Rt. Hon. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Ellis, Sir G.


Broad, F. A.
Craven-Ellis, W.
Elmiey, Viscount


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Emery, J. F.




Entwistle, C. F.
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Ross. Major Sir R. D. (L'derry)


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Lewis, O.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Everard, W. L.
Liddall, W. S.
Rothschild, J. A. de


Fildes, Sir H.
Lindsay, K. M.
Rowlands, G.


Fleming, E. L.
Liewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Foot, D. M.
Loftus, P. C.
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)


Fremantle, Sir F. E.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Furness, S. N.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Salmon, Sir I.


Ganzoni, Sir J.
MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Scot. U.)
Salt, E. W.


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon M. (Ross)
Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Sanderson Sir F. B,


Gluckstein, L. H.
McKie, J. H.
Sandys, E. D.


Goldie, N. B.
Magnay, T.
Savery, Servington


Goodman, Col. A. W.
Maitland, A.
Scott, Lord William


Gower, Sir R. V.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Selley, H. R.


Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon H. D. R.
Shakespeare, G. H.


Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Markham, S. F.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Gridley, Sir A. B.
Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.
Short, A.


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Mathers, G.
Simon, Rt Hon. Sir J. A.


Grimston, R. V.
Maxwell, S. A.
Simpson, F. B.


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Groves, T. E.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)


Guest, Maj. Hon. O.(C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)
Mitcheson, Sir G. G.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H.
Smithers, Sir W.


Guneton, Capt. D. W.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Somervell. Sir D. B, (Crewe)


Guy, J. C. M.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, E.)


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)
Spender-Clay Lt.-Cl. Rt. Hn. H. H.


Hamilton, Sir G. C.
Muff, G.
Stewart, J Henderson (Fife, E.)


Hanbury, Sir C.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Stourton, Hon. J. J.


Hannah, I. C.
Munro, P.
Strauss. E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Harbord, A.
Nall, Sir J.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Harris, Sir P. A.
Neven-Spence. Maj. B. H. H.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Hartington, Marquess of
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Heligers, Captain F. F. A.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Sutcliffe, H.


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Taylor, C S. (Eastbourne)


Hepworth, J.
Owen, Major G.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Paling, W.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Herbert, Captain S. (Abbey)
Palmer, G. E. H.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Holdsworth, H.
Parkinson, J. A.
Tinker, J. J.


Holmes. J. S.
Penny, Sir G.
Touche, G. C.


Hopkin, D.
Petherlek, M.
Tree, A. R. L. F,


Hopkinson, A
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Corn. R. L.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Pilkington, R.
Wakefield, W. W.


Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Plugge, L. F.
Waikden, A. G.


Hulbert, N. J.
Porritt, R. W.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Hume, Sir G. H.
Potts, J.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Hunter, T.
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Ward, Irene (Wallsend)


James, Wing-Commander A. W.
Price, M. P.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Procter, Major H. A.
Wayland, Sir W. A.


John, W.
Radford, E. A.
Wells, S. R.


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gh'n)
Raikes, H. V. A. M.
White, H. Graham


Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Ramsden, Sir E.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Jones, L. (Swansea, W.)
Rankin, R.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Keeling, E. H.
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)
Womersfey, Sir W. J.


Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Reid. W. Allan (Derby)
Wragg, H.


Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Remer, J. R.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Kimball, L.
Richards, R. (Wrexham)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)



Latham, Sir P.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Leckie, J. A.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Commander Southby and Captain Hope.


Lee, F.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)





NOES.


Bevan, A.
Kelly, W. T.
Stephen, C.


Daggar, G.
Leonard, W.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Davidson, J. J, (Maryhill)
MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Gallacher, W.
Mainwaring, W. H.



Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Maxton, J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Griffiths, J. (Lianelly)
Pritt, D. N
Mr. Buchanan and Mr. McGovern.


Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Smith, E. (Stoke)

Orders of the Day — II. DUCHY OF CORNWALL.

Motion made, and Question put,
That it is expedient to enable His Majesty on behalf of any son of His Majesty being Duke of Cornwall to assent

to arrangements whereby during the minority of the said Duke the following payments may (subject to adjustment in respect of parts of years) be made out of the net revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall, that is to say—



(a) a payment at the annual rate of £25,000 to His Royal Highness the Duke of York, so, however, that the rate shall be reduced, in any year in which the net revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall fall sort of £50,000, by the amount of the deficiency; and
(b) a payment to the Exchequer at an annual rate computed in each year by applying to the net revenues of the Duchy for the year, reduced by any sum paid under paragraph (a), the standard rate of Income Tax for the year of assessment in which that year ends and the higher rates of Income Tax for the preceding year of assessment which would be applicable in the case of an individual having a total income equal to those net revenues so reduced; and
(c) a payment at the annual rate of £25,000, to be applied in part for the

purpose of the maintenance and education of the said Duke of Cornwall and in part for the purpose of accumulating sums to be applied in making suitable provision for any future wife of the said Duke and, so far as not required for the purpose of making such provision, in any manner authorised by or under any Act of the present session,
so, however, that if the said payments exceed in the aggregate the net revenues of the Duchy, the payment to the Exchequer may, with the consent of the Treasury, he reduced by an amount not greater than the excess; and to make other provision to facilitate the carrying into effect any such arrangements."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]

The Committee divided: Ayes, 291; Noes, 3.

Division No. 167.]
AYES.
[10.10 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Guest, Hon. (Brecon and Radnor)


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Crooke, J. S.
Guest, Maj. Hon. O.(C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)


Adamson, W. M.
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Guinness, T. L. E. B.


Agnew, Lleut.-Comdr. P. G.
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Gunston, Capt. D. W.


Albery, I. J.
Cross, R. H.
Guy, J. C. M.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Cruddas, Col. B.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Daggar, G.
Hanbury, Sir C.


Anderson Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Davidson, Rt. Hon. Sir J. C. C.
Hannah, I. C.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovil)
Harbord, A.


Apsley, Lord
Dawson, Sir P.
Harris, Sir P. A.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Day, H
Hartington, Marquess of


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Heligers, Captain F. F. A.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Denville, Alfred
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.


Baldwin-Webb, Col, J.
Dodd, J. S.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-


Balniel, Lord
Donner, P. W.
Hepworth, J.


Banfieid, J. W.
Dower, Capt. A. V. G.
Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Drewe, C.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Herbert, Captain S. (Abbey)


Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)
Duggan, H. J.
Holdsworth, H.


Benson, G.
Duncan, J. A. L.
Holmes. J. S.


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Dunglass, Lord
Hopkin, D.


Bird, Sir R. B.
Dunne, P. R. R.
Hopkinson, A.


Blaker, Sir R.
Eastwood, J. F.
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.


Blindell. Sir J.
Eckersley, P. T.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)


Boseom, A. C.
Ede, J. C.
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)


Boulton, W. W.
Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Hulbert, N. J.


Brass, Sir W.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Hume, Sir G. H.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Hunter, T.


Broad, F. A.
Ellis, Sir G.
James, Wing-Commander A. W.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Elmiey, Viscount
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Emery, J. F.
John, W.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Entwistle, C. F.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)


Bull, B. B.
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Jones, L. (Swansea, W.)


Burghley, Lord
Everard, W. L.
Keeling, E. H.


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Fleming, E. L.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)


Burton, Col. H. W.
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Kerr, J. G. (Scottish Universities)


Butler, R. A.
Foot, D. M.
Kimball, L.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Fraser, Capt. Sir I.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.


Carver, Major W. H.
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Latham, Sir P.


Cary, R. A.
Furness, S. N.
Leckie, J. A.


Castlereagh, Viscount
Ganzoni, Sir J.
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Cautley, Sir H. S.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Lewis, O.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Gluckstein, L. H.
Liddall, W. S.


Channon, H.
Goldie, N. B.
Lindsay, K. M.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Goodman, Col. A. W.
Liewelltn, Lieut.-Col. J. J.


Christie, J. A.
Gower, Sir R. V.
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Loftus, P. C.


Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir G. P.
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.


Colman, N. C. D.
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)


Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Scot. U.)


Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (ROSS)


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hernsworth)
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)


Cooper, Rt. Hon. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Grimston, R. V.
McKie, J. H.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
MacNeill, Weir, L.


Craven-Ellis, W.
Groves, T. E.
Magnay, T.




Mainwaring, W. H.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Southlay, Comdr. A. R. J.


Maitland, A.
Ramsden, Sir E.
Spender-Clay Lt.-Cl. Rt. Hn. H. H.


Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Rankin, R
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Manningham-Butler, Sir M.
Rathbone, J. R.(Bodmin)
Stourten, Hon. J. J.


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Markham, S. F.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.
Remer, J. R.
Stuart. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Mathers, G.
Richards, R. (Wrexham)
Sutcliffe, H.


Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Mitcheson, Sir G. G.
Ropner, Colonel L.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.)
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (L'nderry)
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Tinker, J. J.


Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Rothschild, J. A. de
Touche. G. C.


Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)
Rowlands, G.
Tree, A. R. L. F


Muff, G.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Runciman, Rt. Hon. W.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.


Munro, P.
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)
Wakefield, W. W.


Nall, Sir J.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Walkden, A. G.


Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H. H.
Salmon, Sir I.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Salt, E. W.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)
Ward, Irene (Wallsend)


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Sandys, E. D.
Wayland, Sir W. A.


Owen, Major G.
Savery, Servington
Wells, S. R.


Paling, W.
Scott, Lord William
Westwood. J.


Palmer, G. E. H.
Seely, Sir H. M.
White, H. Graham


Parkinson, J. A.
Selley, H. R.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Penny, Sir G.
Shakespeare, G. H.
Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)


Petherick, M.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Fortar)
Williams, H. G. (Croydon. S.)


Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Short, A.
Windsor. W. (Hull, C.)


Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Windsor Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Pilkington, R.
Simpson, F. B.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Plugge, L. F.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Porritt, R. W.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.
Wragg, H.


Potts, J.
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Pownall, Sir Assheton
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Price, M. P.
Smithers, Sir W.



Procter, Major H. A.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Radford, E. A.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, E.)
Dr. Morris-Jones and Captain Hope.




NOES.


Buchanan, G.
Maxton, J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Gallacher, W.

Mr. Stephen and Mr. McGovern.


Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

Orders of the Day — III. AMENDMENT OF LAW.

Resolved,
That it is expedient to amend the law relating to the Civil List, the hereditary revenues and Grants for the Royal Family."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]

Orders of the Day — IV. SALARIES OF CERTAIN OFFICERS OF THE HOUSEHOLD.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, as from the demise of His late Majesty, the salaries of the Treasurer, the Comptroller, and the Vice-Chamberlain of His Majesty's Household shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament as part of the expenses of the Treasury."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]

10.19 p.m.

Mr. M. BEAUMONT: I desire on this Motion to address certain questions to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and to ask for certain assurances which I think are of importance to this Committee. The Motion proposes to remove from the Civil List, and place on the Treasury, the salaries of those officers of the Household who are officers of the Household

by virtue of their position as Members of this House and Members of His Majesty's Government. The recommendation, as far as it says anything as to the reasons, tells us that what the Chancellor proposes to do is being done because these members of the Household are primarily political officers, and have duties analogous to those of Junior Lords of the Treasury: and we are given to understand that it has something to do with the question of a future revision of their salaries. No one would grudge them that increase of salary, but the question goes deeper than that.
I am not opposing the Vote, but I want a clear assurance from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. These officers are a link between this House and the person of the Sovereign, and it is most important in my view, and I believe in that of everyone else, that nothing should be done at the present moment to weaken that link in any way. They have political duties but they are at present definitely members of the Household. They are in


communication with the person of the Sovereign. They bear messages from him to us and they convey expressions from us to him. They have special privileges, the most important and most notable of which is the right of personal and private access to the person of the Sovereign. I do not think there is any Member of the House who would wish that right to be in any way impaired. I do not know whether it is going to be impaired by this change of the source from which the salary is paid, but before we pass this Vote I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give us a very definite guarantee that their status will not be impaired as members of the Household, that they will still have the privileges that they now enjoy, and that they will still be able to convey, as they can at present, communications between this House and the person of the Sovereign, because I think the Committee would be very loth to pass this Resolution unless such an assurance is given. I have no doubt that the Committee which produced this report has carefully considered these points, but I think it would be wrong if a possible change in the relations between this House and the Sovereign were to pass without thorough examination, and I hope that before we pass the Vote the Chancellor will be able to give us the assurance that I ask.

10.24 p.m.

Mr. MAXTON: This is a constitutional change as well as being a change in the arrangements of the Civil List. I should also like an assurance that this is not making any substantial difference in the general managing of governmental arrangements so far as this House is concerned, and that it does not in any way reduce the connections at present established between this House and the Monarchy.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no hesitation in giving an unqualified assurance that the proposals of the Committee will not in any way change the status or the functions or the relations of the three officers in question with this House and the Monarchy. The only change brought about by the proposals of the Committee is the transference of the salaries from the Civil List to the Parliamentary Votes. Apart from that there is no change whatever.

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — PENSIONS (GOVERNORS OF DOMINIONS, ETC.) BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Pensions to certain Governors with three years' service.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. TINKER: I understood to-day from the Prime Minister that if we did not reach this Bill until a late hour, he would not press it to-night. Does he propose to proceed with the Bill now? We are not prepared to let the Bill go easily, and it may stop other business from being taken.

10.26 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Captain Margesson): The Government have no wish to press the consideration of this Bill to-night if the Leader of the Opposition feels that the hour is too late. The Prime Minister certainly said at Question Time that he did not wish to embark upon the Measure late at night. It seemed to me that as it was only 25 minutes past 10 o'clock and there is only one Amendment on the Order Paper, possibly the Committee might have felt disposed to proceed with the business and still get home at a reasonable hour. I say to the Opposition and to the Committee as a whole that, if it is felt to-night that it is too late to proceed with the Committee stage of this small Bill, although there is only one Amendment on the Paper, the Government do not intend to ask the House to sit late and are prepared to put it off until another night on the understanding that we obtain the Second Reading of the Weights and Measures Bill.

Mr. ATTLEE: The course suggested by the Patronage Secretary is a wise one. It is never quite possible to tell how long even a small Bill on which there is one Amendment will take. That one Amendment in this case relates to the substance of the whole of the Bill, and I think that


it is wiser to agree to take the Weights and Measures Bill and allow the Pensions Bill to stand over.

Motion made, and Question,
That the Chairman do report Progress; and ask leave to sit again."—[Captain Margesson.]
put, and agreed to:
Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — WEIGHTS AND MEASURES BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

10.30 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The object of the Bill is to regulate dealings in sand and ballast with a view to the prevention of fraud. It is a necessary complement to the existing law of weights and measures. It has been asked for from a wide circle of interests, and will be generally welcomed by all parts of the House of Commons. I do not think that the House will require at this stage any detailed explanation of the Bill, but if the House gives it a Second Reading it will be referred to a Standing Committee, where its proposals will be thoroughly examined. The Bill is a short one of 13 Clauses. A number of them deal with administrative points, but the short substance of the Measure is to legalise dealings in sand and ballast which are made by the cubic yard or weight. Frauds have taken place during the conveyance of sand and ballast from place to place, and it is necessary to institute more control over the vehicles in which sand and ballast are carried. Certain criticisms which were made when the Bill was introduced in the last Parliament have been substantially met. It has been discussed by a number of trade organisations who will be principally concerned, and has met with general approval.

10.33 p.m.

Mr. HOPKIN: May I ask a question with regard to Subsection (2) of Clause 3, in which it is said:
If any person conveys any sand or ballast in contravention of this Section, or causes any sand or ballast to be conveyed in contravention of this Section, he shall be guilty of an offence.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary think out a scheme to give some protection to the driver of the vehicle so that he shall not be liable for something over which he has no control? Will he consider in Clause 4 an Amendment also to protect the driver of a conveyance by putting in the words:
Provided that nothing in this Section shall make the driver of a conveyance guilty of an offence unless he wilfully signs or uses such conveyance knowing that it contains a materially incorrect statement.
I think it would be wrong to convict a driver of a conveyance in circumstances over which he has no control.

10.34 p.m.

Mr. PRITT: It is probable that the objections I want to put forward have already been considered by the Government. My first objection which will appeal to many hon. Members is that the Bill creates additional criminal offences, which should be avoided wherever possible. My other objection is more serious. The Bill expressly provides for a criminal offence in connection with the sale and conveyance of things like sand and ballast except by the cubic yard. The point which does not seem to have been considered by the framers of the Bill is the following: It is extremely well known in the industry that if a vehicle holding, say, three cubic yards is filled absolutely to the top with gravel or even sand, and is then driven for 10 miles, it is not more than two-thirds full at the end of the journey. This is due to the fact that the gravel or sand shakes down, and it does so in a percentage which cannot be reliably calculated, as it depends partly on the degree of vigour of the shaking and on the distance the stuff is carried, but much more on the shape, size and regularity of the granules or pebbles, or whatever it may be, which form the cubic yard of gravel, which is, of course, a cubic yard consisting partly of gravel and partly of air. That is a matter which must be dealt with properly in order to ensure that nobody is done an injustice and that people are not sent to prison for short weight when all that has happened is that the natural causes of gravity, plus vibration, have shaken down the stuff, which consisted of 10 per cent. of air, into three-quarters of a cubic yard, which consists of very little air. I would like to hear from the Minister whether that problem has been considered.

10.37 p.m.

Mr. HICKS: Generally speaking I welcome the Bill as an effort to redress a grievance which has existed in the trade for a very long time. The hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin) asked the Board of Trade to consider the possibilities of guaranteeing that drivers of lorries will not necessarily be punished if the blame does not attach to them. I think some consideration ought to be given to that point in order that these men may be dealt with fairly and properly. I do not know whether the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) was concerned with gravity or gravel, but I know that a good deal of the decrease in the measure is due to the fact that the sand or gravel is placed in a, container in a moist condition so that when the water runs away from it a very diminished measure becomes available to the client. It is a practice which has existed for a very long time and the clients and the trade generally have been the victims of sharp practices in that direction.
The British Standards Institution, with which my own Federation has been actively associated, has examined this Bill very closely and has generally given it its blessing. There are certain exceptions, of course, and I hope there will be an opportunity for further consideration of those points in Committee. Generally speaking, so far as the trade and the building operatives are concerned, we welcome the Bill as an effort to remedy a wrong. The fact that the cubic yard has for many years been regarded in the industry as a measure, which to-day is not legal, is something which has been discovered as a result of examination. This Bill is an effort to right a wrong, and I feel certain that if the general intent and purposes of the Bill, together with necessary and proper safeguards, can be adequately established, the industry generally will welcome the Bill.

10.39 p.m.

Sir ROBERT TASKER: I beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and, at the end of the Question, to add, "upon this day six months."
I do that for the purpose of obtaining certain information which, I think, the House is entitled to have from the Minister. Nearly the whole of the Clauses of the Bill are supported not only by the

trade interested but by national bodies which are well acquainted with all the questions relating to this particular trade. I have a list here which I will not trouble to read to the House, but it includes the Minister of Transport, the whole of the railway companies of Great Britain, the national building trade employers, and others, all of them unanimous. Therefore one can understand this combination of people whose interests are distinct, because they desire to bring to an end the malpractices which at present obtain. My efforts to call attention by question to certain details in connection with this Measure were brought to an untimely end by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Dr. Burgin), but I apprehend that while back-benchers sometimes have imposed upon them a sort of paralysing inertia, which renders them mute, we are not to be treated like that on all occasions and there are certain difficulties which I think the Minister has not realised.
Whether it is sand or ballast which is in question, there are certain factors which have to be taken into account. The material may be wet or dry, the vehicle in which it is carried may be traversing a short distance or a long distance over good roads or over bad roads. The vehicle may have pneumatic tyres or solid tyres and even that factor will affect the volume. I would like to assure the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) that his informant who told him that the volume would be decreased by one-third was guilty of gross exaggeration. We are in possession of statistics which show that after traversing some 20 miles of road the weight of sand is only reduced in volume by 5.5 per cent., and in no case is any material mentioned in the Bill reduced by more than 8.4 per cent.
I think the Bill should contain a Clause which would allow for a certain percentage, in order that the driver of the vehicle may not be penalised for something over which he can exercise no control. I think this could be dealt with by the same method as that of a baker who, in weighing up the dough for a 2 lb loaf, makes it 2 lbs. 2 ozs. So many bushels could be allowed on a given quantum to make up for the deficiency which must accrue when the interstices between different elements in the material are filled up, due to jolting or vibration


or the leakage of water. In Clause 2 reference is made to conforming with such regulations as may be made by the Board of Trade. I confess I am not enamoured of legislation by regulation. Although I know that it is dear to the heart of bureaucracy I feel there is a tendency in these days to increase the number of officials rather needlessly. A Clause which calls for some criticism is Clause 12, dealing with interpretation. I suggest that the words in paragraph (b)
or hard core of brick, stone, stoneware or concrete 
should be deleted, and a new paragraph introduced, because those who are acquainted with building material make a great distinction between hard core and other materials which are designated as ballast. Ballast means stone chippings granite chippings, sand, shingle and so on, and they come in an entirely different category. At the present moment I have a building operation where I am glad to give away the hard core, and it is unfair to penalise a man because, when he is given a certain volume, it does not happen to conform to the standard set out in the Bill.
Hard core is an extraordinarily wide term. This Clause presupposes that hard core is to be used as an aggregate for concrete. In my experience that would be a most unusual thing; in fact, I would prohibit it. I do not know anyone who would allow hard core to be used as an aggregate for concrete. Hard core may be due to the demolition of buildings and may consist of soft bricks or huge masses of stone work, and it is useless for making concrete. It would be well if in Committee some consideration were given to the definition of hard core. If the Minister is prepared to give me that assurance I will ask leave to withdraw my Amendment. I would venture to suggest that if at any future time information is required on trade matters such as are dealt with in this Measure, the courtesy should be extended to hon. Members of a consultation in order to ascertain proper information. Backbenchers are not like the great Mogul throned in majesty, wrapped in silence.

10.48 p.m.

Mr. EDE: I beg to second the Amendment.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned that there had been consultations with the trade. The success of this Measure depends on its being carried out by the local authorities. I know that there is some misgiving among some of them with regard to the power given to them under the Bill. I hope that in the conversations that will have to take place between now and the Committee stage of the Bill they will be consulted also. There is general agreement that this subject is long overdue for legislation. Local authorities have been among the chief sufferers in this matter in regard to the consignment of these materials sent for use on highways; and they have therefore a direct as well as an administrative interest in securing that the law is efficient. I am told that this is one of the matters in which the ingenuity of man can be very skilfully directed towards the most wicked ends, and that it is very desirable that those who have to administer this legislation should be consulted in regard to it in order to make sure that the objects of the Legislature can be carried into effect by the administrators.

10.50 p.m.

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: I should like very briefly to congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary of the Board of Trade not merely on having moved the Second Reading of the Bill to-night, but on having been engaged with great success in difficult negotiations during the last two or three years in respect of this Bill. Apart from those Bills which pro yoke mass correspondence I have received more correspondence from my constituents on this Bill than on any other subject, and I have burdened the Parliamentary Secretary with many letters myself. The object of this Bill is to prevent fraud. I recognise to the full the point which has been made by the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt), but I think that his fears were largely answered by my hon. Friend who moved the rejection of the Bill. I would remind hon. Members that this Bill is having its second Parliamentary experience. It was introduced in the last Parliament, when it had bottles added on to hard core. The bottles represented such difficulties that they were dropped. Amendments were made in another place which solved the bulk of the problems which the Bill presented in


its original form. It has been carefully investigated by representatives of the trades concerned, and advice has been given by the British Standards Institution and by that admirable body the Standards Department of the Board of Trade. I was not much impressed by my hon. Friend's arguments about hard core, because I can imagine a lot of uses for hard core other than concrete. It can be used for concrete.

Sir R. TASKER: The Deputy-Director of the British Standards Institution says:
With regard to the inclusion of hard core in the Bill… I find the reason for its inclusion is primarily that it is used extensively as an aggregate for concrete, and for such purposes is sold by the cubic yard, and it is very desirable that it should be dealt with in the same way as sand and ballast, as the sale of it is liable to the same malpractices.

Mr. WILLIAMS: My hon. Friend suggested that it was totally unsuitable for that purpose. If it is the subject of fraud, whatever its use may be, its sale ought to be regulated in the way prescribed in this Bill. I hope that the Bill will have a swift passage, although there are problems that will have to be examined in Committee.

Orders of the Day — GAS UNDERTAKINGS ACTS, 1920 TO 1934.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the British Gas Light Company, Limited, which was presented on the 24th day of March and published, be approved.
Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Southgate and District Gas Company, which was presented on the 31st day of March and published, be approved.
Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of the borough of Kendal, which was presented on the 7th day of April and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Bath Gas Company, which was presented on the 9th day of April and published, be approved.
Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Stroud Gaslight and Coke Company, which was presented on the 9th day of April and published, be approved."—[Dr. Burgin.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — HERRING INDUSTRY BOARD.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]

10.57 p.m.

Mr. HENDERSON STEWART: Hon. Members will recall that recently I addressed to the Secretary of State for Scotland some questions on the subject of the Herring Industry Board. The answers did not seem to me satisfactory, and as the matter affects vitally a considerable section of the Scottish people I take the opportunity of raising it again to-night. The House will remember that a year ago we passed unanimously a Bill to deal with the herring industry. Like the recent Sugar Beet Act it was intended to do two things, first, to create a machine by which the industry could manage its own affairs in the light of present day circumstances, and, secondly, thereby to relieve Parliament and Members of Parliament of problems with which they were ill-fitted to deal. I am not going to recall the circumstances existing at the time of the passing of that Measure, but hon. Members will recall that prior to the passing of the Herring Industry Act we were bombarded month by month with deputations, protests and resolutions from the herring trade. We passed various Measures to deal with the most immediate problems, but the position was never satisfactory, and when after very careful examination by this House, following upon long and patient investigations by a Commission, a comprehensive scheme was ultimately drafted and accepted by the trade, there was not a


single Member representing a fishing division who did not heave a sigh of relief and feel that now there was a little peace in store.
Judge of our surprise and disappointment when, a few weeks ago, representatives of fishing divisions were again overwhelmed with a flood of telegrams, some of them covering many pages, letters, and telephone messages from the Far North, to be followed by mass meetings in different parts of the country, and ultimately by a very imposing deputation waiting on us within the precincts of this House. All those communications and deputations told the same story we had heard years ago and made the same demands. The trade they said, was on its last legs and unless large sums were provided by the National Exchequer not a single boat would put to sea in the coming season. My first reaction to that bombardment, and I imagine it is shared by most Members of the House, is to ask, Why should the new attack be directed at the heads of Members of Parliament?

It being Eleven of the Clock, the motion for the Adjournment lapsed, without Question put.

Question again proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]

Mr. STEWART: My first reaction to the new avalanche of questions and demands from the herring trade is to ask why the attack should be directed at our heads. The Act of last year was designed specifically to take out of the hands of Parliament responsibility for any of the matters, with perhaps two exceptions, dealt with by the recent deputation; and the deputation must have known that. Their renewed appeal therefore demands some inquiry. Why should their doubt and anxiety be expressed here and not to the board which was elected for the very purpose of hearing it? Why should this deputation come to see Members of Parliament and the Scottish Office and not the Herring Industry Board? It was a deputation of 12, and it came from Scotland, a long journey, which must have cost them a good deal of money. They came here, not one of them with any instructions, I am informed, to visit the Herring Industry Board, and I am told that but for the

pressure exercised by the Secretary of State, they would have returned home without so much as saying "Good day" to this new board in whose hands in fact lies the very destiny of their industry in the years to come.
That is surely an amazing state of affairs. I can offer only one explanation, and it is this, that the Herring Industry Board, for the time being at any rate, and I would say for some months past, has lost the confidence of the trade. I am sorry to say that, because I am a friend of the board. profoundly believe in it. I urged it before it was ever mentioned by the Duncan Commission. I regard it as indispensable, its leadership, its direction, its power of co-ordination to be the only hope for restoring prosperity to the trade. But there it is. That is the position, and I think we have to face it and try to overcome it.
There is no question about the unrest in the trade in Scotland at the present time. If hon. Members care to visit any of the fishing ports in Scotland and meet the men—skippers, deck-hands, share fishermen—they will find anxiety, doubts, criticism, suspicions, ail of these things, unfortunately, levelled against this new board.
I have taken the trouble to examine some of these criticisms and to probe some of these doubts. I have found that most of them are due to misunderstanding. For example, it is the common view of rank and file fishermen in Scotland that the chief aim of the board, if not its sole policy, as some of them have said, is drastically to reduce the fleet of drifters without care or concern for the fate of the crews thus displaced. That is what they think. It may be wrong and absurd, but that is what they believe at the present time. Other criticisms are due to prejudice. They are told by some of their leaders that the board is being run in the interests of the English trade. The leader of the deputation told us last week that the board viewed all Scottish matters through English spectacles. That also may be absurd, but that is what the men are thinking and saying to-day. These misunderstandings ought to be removed.
But as I have spoken frankly of the board, may I speak plainly also about the trade itself. Many of the anxieties felt and expressed by ordinary fishermen are due to misdirection by the fishermen's


leaders themselves, and I am bound to say that sometimes it appears as if it were almost deliberate misdirection. The longer I live among fishermen, the more I admire them as men, but I confess the more I watch the direction of their affairs, the more I deplore the leadership which these fine men have to suffer. Indeed I have come to the conclusion that the herring fishing industry must be about the worst led trade in the country. That is a calamity which may have very serious consequences. Some of the proposals recently put about are not only absurd, but ludicrous; they have discredited the herring industry and, unfortunately, have misled some of these simple men to believe certain things are possible which we know are impossible. Sometimes too opposition has been organised against the Herring Industry Board, which I can only regard as rather discreditable. The interests of the fishermen in most of the schemes that have been put forward seem to have been the last thing considered by those supposed to speak on their behalf.
These are not new conditions. It has always been so, and it was largely on the ground of lack of leadership and to ensure a square deal for the men on the boats that I supported the creation of the new board, to take charge of the business. I beg the Herring Board, as a friend, to realise that since disinterested leadership and efficient leadership does not exist in the herring industry, the board must come in and provide it. I would ask them to believe that the fishermen are looking for such leadership. But if the board is to lead it must first of all gain the confidence of the men. It must realise that it is dealing with rather a peculiar person in the Scottish herring fisherman, one of a race which has never known any control by an outside authority upon any of its efforts, a race which has been accustomed to unfettered freedom of action, and a race, therefore, which naturally looks with suspicion and not a little fear upon this new instrument designed to control their enterprise.
In these circumstances I would beg the board to come out of its London office, to go into the fishing villages, to mix with the men, to go into their homes, as we who represent fishing villages do, to hear what they say, to sit in their cottages, to meet them on the quays, to

talk with them, to get to understand their problems. If, having done so, they find misunderstandings and gross misstatements made, then let the board answer them at once. You cannot go on for ever ignoring these unfortunate rumours and criticisms. A dictator, if you like, can ignore hostile comment, and even a public company can pass it by, but never an organisation like the Herring Industry Board, which depends for its life on retaining the confidence of its producers. Above all, let the board be frank with the trade about its proposals, what it has done, and what it pm-poses to do. I am told that when the deputation met the Herring Industry Board last week they were surprised to learn of many of the things which the board had achieved in recent weeks. A deputation of 12 picked men from Scotland apparently did not know what had happened! That is not the fault of the fishermen; it is the fault of the board. It is a grave reflection upon what I would call the public relations department of the board, upon the business acumen of the board.
If when the board has made its enquiries personally and stated its case, it finds that it has not sufficient powers for dealing with the task committed to it by Parliament, let it come openly to the House and ask for more powers. If I understand the temper of the House aright, we are ready to grant whatever further powers are necessary. We have demonstrated more than once that the herring industry has a warm place in the hearts of the British House of Commons. We look back with pride and gratitude upon the magnificent services of the fishermen during the War. We stand in awe of their nightly heroism. And looking on the dangers that lie ahead, I am certain that this House is determined, whether the outcome be peace or war, to maintain for the glory of our race the strength, spirit and man power of the Scottish fishermen.

Mr. LOFTUS: The hon. Member stated that the accusation made by the fishermen was that the Herring Industry Board saw Scottish matters through English spectacles. Is it not a fact that of six trade representatives on the board five are Scottish, and does the hon. Member endorse that accusation?

Mr. STEWART: I am glad that the hon. Member raises the point. I do not endorse it because I think it is an unjustifiable accusation.

11.12 p.m.

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): The hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) has displayed his interest in this subject since he entered this House, and the claims of the fishermen have been impressed upon His Majesty's Government from the Floor of this House. We believed, when we passed the legislation that set up the Herring Industry Board, that we were, to a large extent, finished with their difficulties. When the claims come before us of any body of our fellow countrymen who are suffering from bad economic conditions, or when any section of the British public, feeling the pinch of poverty through hardship in their trade, looks to the House of Commons to redress their grievances, if possible, it is a great tribute to the House of Commons. I take no exception to, in fact I welcome, that spirit, for it shows that in our history, going back now for many hundreds of years, if any section of our people feel that they can come to this House, they always do so, especially those who ply their trade on the high seas. That is a tribute to the common sense and fair mindedness of the British House of Commons.
The hon. Gentleman said that the Herring Industry Board had lost the confidence of the trade. I was glad that, in the next sentence, he told us that he thought that was due very largely to misunderstanding and, in many cases, to misdirection. I hope before I sit down to cover the points which he has raised and the numerous points which we have learned from our meetings with the Herring Industry Board, which we held a week before the fishermen came to London, last week. Having sat in conference with the board and heard the board and the fishermen, we are, indeed, in possession of the full facts of the case. The hon. Gentleman said that the claims of the men would always find a warm reception in the House of Commons. If I am not able to find a solution of the difficulties that beset the industry I hope the House will believe that it is not through any lack of desire or study of their problems.
The first meeting that we held was with the board. It is only some 15 months since Parliament decided to set up the board, and since that time the board have been studying the problem which has baffled the ingenuity of many people in the past. Naturally, during these 15 months, they have been concerned with trying to secure foreign markets, and to open up new channels of distribution in Palestine and other places which may be fruitful sources of increased prosperity for the industry. In addition, they have be en studying how to increase the home market, where some 30 to 40 per cent. of the product of the herring fishery is consumed. I am glad to say also that the board have arranged for an active advertising campaign, carried out with all the arts of modern propaganda, during the next few months; and they have also arranged with a large number of chain stores throughout the country that the public of Great Britain should be supplied, for a penny apiece, with herring caught by British fishermen in the North Sea.
When these herring fishermen, who spend their days on the North Sea, came to See me, they thought, as I think wrongly—living, as they do, in small isolated ports around our coasts—that the Herring Industry Board had not been sufficiently in touch with their interests and with their desire for help during this short period of 15 months. I can quite understand the fishermen having those thoughts. I tried, with such imagination as I possess, to enter into their difficulties, and I said to the board, "I put myself in the position of a fisherman in some of our ports in the Moray Firth, who is asking what the Herring Industry Board are doing for him." I put that question to the board, and throughout the negotiations my sole objective was to try to interpret the interests of the board to the fishermen and the interests of the fishermen to the board. I had no solution of their problem. Parliament had decided in its wisdom to set up the board, and I thought I should be doing no service to the fishermen if I, as a Minister of the Crown, held out hopes that Parliament this year would find some solution of their immediate problem. I though that the best thing to do was to try to show them that the welfare of their industry was wrapped up in endeavouring to get these


two interests to come together, to see the problem from each other's angle and understand each other's difficulties, to sit round a table and discuss the problems which concern their industry. We were fortunate in securing, as my hon. Friend has said, that, the day after the fishermen came to see us, they had a meeting with the board.
Let me remind the House of the problems which concern the fishermen. They are interested in the loan for nets. Some £20,000 already has been arranged by way of loan for the use of the fishermen, and the number making use of it is still increasing. Then the problem of redundancy arises, and I am glad to say here, on the Floor of the House of Commons, that there is no foundation whatsoever for the fear which was present in the minds of the fishermen that there would be some drastic reduction. I was glad that my hon. Friend made that point and I am glad to repeat it. I find there is much agreement between the Herring Industry Board and the fishermen as to the number of boats which should go to sea. I think the fear was very natural in the minds of those men that some drastic ruling would emanate from the Herring Industry Board and that they would be deprived of the opportunity of seeking their living in the North Sea during the coming year. That fear, I hope, has been completely removed. Then the question of the terms of reconditioning were mentioned. I cannot say more to-night than that the Herring Industry Board are giving sympathetic consideration to the case submitted by the fishermen. When the fishermen met the board they were able to discuss their problem round a table and explain the difficulties which always arise when any business board, set up by Parliament or otherwise, tries to direct and control and manage the daily lives of any particular class of the community in the interests of that class. When I listened to their stories I felt sometimes a little sorry for the members of the Herring Industry Board. I have been, with the Minister of Agriculture, responsible for asking some seven or eight men drawn from various sections of the industry to try and help to solve that problem, which was, and is, and will be, a difficult problem for any body of men, however constituted, with all the skill and wisdom that any

body of men could have; but having said that I am glad to think that the situation is better as the result of this meeting and that there is, indeed, as I know from official information, increased activity among our fishing fleet. It is a problem that is always present in the mind of every business man day by day.
The question of grants was raised, and I am glad to think that that difficulty is completely out of the way. I fear I was a little blunt and brusque on that subject, but I thought that the interests of the fishermen would not be served by dangling any hope that money would be found by this Parliament for their present needs. At the meeting of the industry with the board, I am glad to tell the House that after some of the difficulties were looked straight in the face, the fishermen left with a. deeper appreciation and a more clear understanding of the difficulties which will always face any party which may aim at controlling an industry, and, though I may be imbued sometimes with too much hope, I still hope and believe that the fears expressed by some of the most pessimistic of the fishermen's speakers may not be realised in the future. One of the main points that the fishermen placed before us was their desire to secure for every man who went to sea a guaranteed weekly wage of 30s. besides the cost of his food. Apart from the merits of that proposal we had to advise the board that it was outside the scope of the Act. However much we all desire to see that each of these men should receive that wage, and more, it is outside the terms of the Act of Parliament which was passed with full knowledge by this House some 15 months ago. That being so, we should have been false to the trust which the House gave to us when we passed the Act if I did not say this quite clearly. The hon. Member in his speech referred to the location of the head office of the Herring Industry Board and also to the lack of touch with the fishermen. I believe that these meetings may result in a much closer contact between the fishermen and the board. When I say that, I do not wish to imply Any criticism of the board. That would be entirely outside my desire in any shape or form.
The fishermen also pressed us to try and use influence with the Admiralty in view of the increased interest in this House and the country in our Defence Forces.


There were also views put forward in writing on the subject of grants from Navy Votes, but it is not for me as being responsible for the Scottish Office to reply. It would be unwise for me to raise any hopes that such grants could be made. Having sketched briefly to the House the situation which faced us last week, may I remind the House of the really improved situation which existed last year in the herring fishing fleet. The catch increased from 1,590,000 barrels to 1,960,000 barrels, and the number of barrels exported from 768,000, to over 1,000,000 in 1935. I quote those figures in no spirit of complacency. I should like to see them doubled. The Herring Industry Board has been entrusted by Parliament with the responsibility of trying to safeguard the interests of herring fishermen and I suggest that, having accepted the decisions and recommendations of Sir Andrew Duncan and

his commissioners, who have studied the problem over a long period of time, and visited every port in the country, the House can rest assured that the board will do its best to solve the problem. Although the conditions fall short of what every hon. Member desires as a result of setting up of the board, the right thing to do, and here I appeal to the leaders of the fishermen, is not to criticise the board, that is easy, but to come inside the board and in a spirit of mutual help, with the knowledge they possess to try and secure better conditions not only for the seamen who go to sea but for all interests in the industry. I think the hon. Member has done a public service in raising this question on the Floor of the House this evening.

It being Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.